{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18973/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18973","id":"gutenberg_18973","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18973","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Maya calendar"],"text":"Produced by PM for Bureau of American Ethnology, Julia\nMiller, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by the Biblioth\u00e8que nationale\nde France (BnF/Gallica) at http://gallica.bnf.fr)\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\nThis paper is an extract from the following publication:\n\n Powell, J. W.\n 1897 _Sixteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American\n Ethnology._ pp. 199-266. Government Printing Office,\n Washington, D.C.\n\nThe index was extracted from the complete volume index.\n\nInconsistencies in hyphenation and spelling have been maintained, along\nwith two typographical errors. The typographical errors are marked with\n[TN-#] in the text. A complete list of inconsistencies and errors is\nfound at the end of this paper.\n\nThe original publication used characters which are not available in the\ncharacter set used in this version of the text. They have been replaced\nwith the following codes:\n\n [c] open o\n [=h] h with stroke\n\n\n\n\nDAY SYMBOLS OF THE MAYA YEAR\n\n BY\n\n CYRUS THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n Page\n Introductory 205\n The first day 207\n The second day 215\n The third day 221\n The fourth day 226\n The fifth day 229\n The sixth day 231\n The seventh day 232\n The eighth day 235\n The ninth day 237\n The tenth day 239\n The eleventh day 241\n The twelfth day 243\n The thirteenth day 245\n The fourteenth day 248\n The fifteenth day 250\n The sixteenth day 252\n The seventeenth day 254\n The eighteenth day 258\n The nineteenth day 259\n The twentieth day 262\n Appendix--A list of the deities of the days of the month in the\n Maori calendar 265\n\n\n\n\nILLUSTRATIONS\n\n Page\n PLATE LXIV. Copies of glyphs from the codices 208\n LXV. Copies of glyphs from the codices 226\n LXVI. Copies of glyphs from the codices 242\n LXVII. Copies of glyphs from the codices 252\n LXVIII. Copies of glyphs from the codices 260\n LXIX. Shell bearing Maya glyphs 262\n\n\n\n\nDAY SYMBOLS OF THE MAYA YEAR\n\nBY CYRUS THOMAS\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\nAs the origin and signification of the day and month, names of the Maya\ncalendar, and of the symbols used to represent these time periods, are\nnow being discussed by students of Mexican and Central American\npaleography, I deem it advisable to present the result of my\ninvestigations in this line. The present paper, however, will be limited\nto the days only, as I have but little to add in regard to the month\nnames or symbols. As the conclusion reached by Drs Seler and Brinton in\nregard to the order and sequence of the days of the month in the\ndifferent calendars appears to be satisfactorily established, it will be\naccepted.\n\nAs frequent allusion is made herein to the phoneticism or phonetic value\nof the written characters or hieroglyphs, it is proper that the writer's\nposition on this point should be clearly understood. He does not claim\nthat the Maya scribes had reached that advanced stage where they could\nindicate each letter-sound by a glyph or symbol. On the contrary, he\nthinks a symbol, probably derived in most cases from an older method of\npicture writing, was selected because the name or word it represented\nhad as its chief phonetic element a certain consonant sound or syllable.\nIf this consonant element were _b_, the symbol would be used where _b_\nwas the prominent consonant element of the word to be indicated, no\nreference, however, to its original signification being necessarily\nretained. Thus the symbol for _cab_, \"earth,\" might be used in writing\n_Caban_, a day name, or _cabil_, \"honey,\" because _cab_ is their chief\nphonetic element.\n\nIn a previous work[205-1] I have expressed the opinion that the\ncharacters are to a certain extent phonetic--are not true alphabetic\nsigns, but syllabic. And at the same time I expressed the opinion that\neven this definition did not hold true of all, as some were apparently\nideographic, while others were simple abbreviated pictorial\nrepresentations. In a subsequent paper[205-2] I expressed substantially\nthe same opinion, and gave as my belief that one reason why attempts at\ndecipherment have failed of success is a misconception of the peculiar\ncharacter of the writing, which peculiarity is found in the fact that,\nas it exists in the codices and inscriptions, it is in a transition\nstage from the purely ideographic to the phonetic. I stated also my\nbelief that the writing had not reached the stage when each sound was\nindicated by a glyph or sign.\n\nThis may further be explained by the following illustration: The\nconventionalized figure of a turtlehead is the symbol for a \"turtle,\"\n_ak_, _ac_, or _aac_ in Maya; and a conventionalized footprint is the\nsymbol for \"step\" or \"road,\" _be_, _beil_, in Maya. These may be brought\ntogether to form the word _akyab_ or _kayab_, which may have no\nreference to the original signification of the combined symbols. These\ntwo glyphs are, in fact, combined to form the symbol for the month\n_Kayab_.\n\nThese statements will perhaps suffice to make clear my views on this\nquestion, which do not appear to have been clearly understood, possibly\nbecause of my frequent use of the words \"phonetic\" and \"phoneticism,\"\nand perhaps rather loose reference to \"letter elements.\"\n\nIt is proper, however, to add that I am inclined to the opinion that\nmodification in the form and details of a glyph which belongs to the\nclass which, for want of a better term, we may designate \"phonetic,\" in\nmany cases indicates a modification or change in the signification or\nword value. I say in \"many cases,\" because these modifications are due\noften to the greater or lesser accuracy with which the glyph is drawn,\nthe caprice of the scribe, and other causes which have no reference to\nsound or signification. For example, the change of a rounded or circular\nsymbol to a face figure, as is often done, does not appear, at least in\nthe day signs, to have any significance. On the other hand, a slight\nvariation, if permanent, may be indicative of a difference in\nsignification or phonetic value. This appears to be true, to some\nextent, whether we consider the characters ideographic or as, in some\nsense, phonetic.\n\nThe lists of the days in the Maya, Tzental, Quiche-Cakchiquel, Zapotec,\nand Nahuatl, in the order usually given, are as follows:\n\n_Names of the days in the different calendars_\n\n -----------+----------+-------------------+---------------+---------------\n Maya | Tzental | Quiche-Cakchiquel | Zapotec | Nahuatl\n -----------+----------+-------------------+---------------+---------------\n Imix. | Imox. | Imox. | Chilla. | Cipactli.\n Ik. | Igh. | Ik'. | Gui, Ni, Laa. | Ehecatl.\n Akbal. | Votan. | Akbal. | Gu\u00e8la. | Calli.\n Kan. | Ghanan. | K'at. | Guache. | Cuetzpallin.\n Chicchan. | Abagh. | Can. | Ci, Ziie. | Cohuatl.\n Cimi. | Tox. | Camey. | Lana. | Miquiztli.\n Manik. | Moxic. | Quch. | China. | Mazatl.\n Lamat. | Lambat. | Canel. | Lapa. | Tochtli.\n Muluc. | Molo. | Toh. | Niza. | Atl.\n Oc. | Elab. | Tzi. | Tella. | Itzcuintli.\n Chuen. | Batz. | Batz. | Goloo. | Ozomatli.\n Eb. | Euob. | E, Ee. | Pija. | Mallinalli.\n Ben, Been. | Ben. | Ah. | Quii. | Acatl.\n Ix, Hix. | Hix. | Balam. | Eche. | Ocelotl.\n Men. | Tziquin. | Tziquin. | Naa. | Quauhtli.\n Cib. | Chabin. | Ahmak. | Loo. | Cozcaquauhtli.\n Caban. | Chic. | Noh. | Xoo. | Ollin.\n Edznab. | Chinax. | Tihax. | Gopaa. | Tecpatl.\n Cauac. | Cahogh. | Caoc. | Appe. | Quiahuitl.\n Ahau. | Aghual. | Hunahpu. | Lao. | Xochitl.\n -----------+----------+-------------------+---------------+---------------\n\n\nTHE FIRST DAY\n\nMaya, _imix_ (or _ymix_); Tzental, _imox_ or _mox_; Quiche-Cakchiquel,\n_imox_ or _moxin_; Zapotec, _chilla_ or _chiylla_; Nahuatl, _cipactli_.\n\nThe symbol of this day, which is quite uniform in the day series of the\ncodices, is shown in plate LXIV, 1.[207-1] In this the essential\nfeatures appear to be the black spot at the top, the semicircle of dots\naround it, and the short perpendicular lines in the lower half. The form\non the right slab of the \"Palenque tablet,\" and also in the Lorillard\nCity inscription, copied by Charney,[TN-1] is given in plate LXIV, 2.\nThe only particular in which this differs from the other is that the\nlittle circle at the top is crosshatched. The form shown in LXIV, 3, is\nfound in the Tikal inscription; it shows also the crosshatching in the\nlittle circle at the top. This character, however, when combined with\nother glyphs, and when used otherwise than as a day symbol, sometimes\nvaries from the types given. For example, in the symbol of the month\n_Mac_ it is as shown in plate LXIV, 4. In this a minute, divided oblong,\ntakes the place of the dark spot at the top, and a double curved line\naccompanies the circle of dots. Another form is shown in plate LXIV, 5.\nThe only variation in this from the usual type is the introduction of\ntwo or three minute circles in the curved line of dots and the divided\noblong. Dr Seler is inclined to believe that these are essential\nvariants from the true _imix_ symbol; nevertheless, as _m_ is the chief\nconsonant element both in _imix_, or _mox_ and _mac_, there appears to\nbe a relation between the form of the glyphs and their phonetic value.\n\nDrs Seler and Schellhas believe _im_ to be the radical of _imix_ and\n_imox_, which are dialectal variations of the same word. Dr Brinton,\nhowever, basing his opinion on the fact that _mox_ and _moxin_ are used\nsometimes as equivalents, decides that the radical syllable is _m-x_. In\nthis he is probably correct, and if so, this furnishes additional\nevidence of the close relation between form and sound, as in one case\n_m-x_ are the chief phonetic elements and in the other _m-c_. It is\nprobable that Drs Schellhas and Seler were led to their conclusion by\nthe fact that the symbol bears a close resemblance to the conventional\nform of the female breast, which in Maya is _im_. This, which was\nperhaps the origin of the symbol, was probably selected simply because\n_m_ is its only prominent element. Nevertheless, it is worthy of notice\nthat the symbol for the day _Ix_ is frequently represented as shown in\nplate LXVI, 36, from Tro. 5*c. This is similar in some respects to the\n_Imix_ symbol, and the name contains the _i_ and _x_ of the latter. If\nthe writing is phonetic, the points of resemblance may have some\nsignificance, otherwise they do not.\n\nIn a previous paper[208-1] I suggested that the probable signification\nof the character LXIV, 7, from Dres. 14c and 46b, is _maax_, \"monkey,\nape, imitator.\" Below the text in each case is seen a dark male figure\n(or deity), to which it undoubtedly refers, as is conceded by Drs\nSchellhas and Seler. The face character, which forms part of the glyph,\nmay be only a determinative; at least I am unable to assign it any other\nvalue in this connection, and the necessity for such determinative is\napparent. Brasseur, under _akab-maax_, speaks of a phantom or hobgoblin\nof this name, which he says signifies \"the great monkey of the night.\"\nPerez gives as definitions \"duende\" (elf or hobgoblin) and \"mico\nnocturno.\" Henderson, who writes the name _akabmax_, simply says\n\"sprite, phantom.\" It would seem, therefore, that among the\nsuperstitious beliefs of the Maya was that of a night phantom or deity,\nwhich took the form of a monkey. But this black figure appears to be\ndifferent from those on Tro. 34*-31*, with which Seler connects it and\nto which he applies the name Ekchuah.[208-2]\n\nIn the paper above referred to, I have interpreted the symbol shown in\nplate LXIV, 8 (from Dres. 35c) _maach_, \"the crow,\" assuming the\nbirdhead to be a determinative. Seler concludes that the bird which this\nrepresents is \"a substitute, colleague, or symbol of the Rain god Chac,\"\nthe so-called Maya Tlaloc so frequently represented in the codices.\nAlthough there is in this case no bird figure below to confirm our\ninterpretation, yet it appears to be justified by the comparisons given\nand by its agreement with the phonetic value of the _imix_ symbol. It is\nalso further confirmed by the two glyphs shown in plate LXVIII, 13, 14,\nwhich occur together in Dres. 38b. In this case the two characters,\nwhich are combined in plate LXIV, 8, are separated, yet must have the\nsame signification. Here the bird figure (a man with a bird's head or\nbird mask) is seen below. In both instances rain is represented, showing\nthat the bird is supposed to bear some relation thereto. But it is more\nlikely that it has direct reference to the wind which accompanies the\nrain storm rather than to \"fruitfulness,\" as Seler supposes. Be this,\nhowever, as it may, our rendering of the _imix_ symbol in this\nconnection appears to be justified, and indicates that the symbol is\nused here for its phonetic value rather than with any reference to its\nprimary signification.\n\n[Illustration: PL. LXIV. COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES]\n\nDr Seler also refers in this connection to the lower line of symbols on\nDres. 29-30b (three of which are shown in plate LXVIII, 15, 16, 17); to\nthose shown in plate LXVIII, 18, 19, from Tro. 14c; and those shown in\nplate LXVIII, 20, 21, from Tro. 11a. He remarks that \"in a number of\nhieroglyphs the character _imix_ stands as an equivalent of a peculiar\nanimal head which bears as a distinctive mark the element _akbal_ over\nthe eye. Thus in the hieroglyphs enumerating those above mentioned\nwhich, standing after the hieroglyphs of the cardinal points, seem to\nexpress the deities presiding over them, indeed there appears here on\nthe same animal head, on one hand the character _imix_, on the other the\nelement figure 165\" (our plate LXIV, 5).\n\nAlthough I am unable to interpret satisfactorily the _imix_ symbols in\nthe places above referred to, I think it can be made apparent that Dr\nSeler's explanation is without foundation. For instance, by referring to\nthe plates of the Dresden and Troano codices mentioned, it will be seen\nthat there is nothing whatever that refers to an \"animal head which\nbears the element _akbal_ over the eye,\" unless we suppose it to be in\nplate LXVIII, 16 (from Dres. 29b) and LXVIII, 21 (from Tro. 11a). There\nis no figure below or connected with either series to justify this\nconclusion. It is also certain that plate LXVIII, 21 (Tro. 11a) is not\nan animal head. Possibly plate LXVIII, 16 (Dres. 29b) may be intended\nfor an animal head, but this is not certain and, moreover, it is not\nrepeated in the series.\n\nReferring to Cort. 27a it will be seen that the compound glyph shown in\nplate LXVIII, 22 (apparently the same as that on Tro. 11a) is repeated\nfour times in one line, each connected with a cardinal point symbol, and\neach standing immediately over and evidently referring to a large\nvessel.[209-1] It is stated that it was a custom among the Maya during\ncertain religious ceremonies to place a vessel in their temples at each\nof the four cardinal points.[209-2] As _cum_ and _xamach_ are Maya words\nsignifying vessel, we still find in these the _m_ sound. It is therefore\npossible that the similar glyphs on Dres. 29b and Tro. 14 and 15 also\nrefer to vessels. The supposition seems to be strengthened by the fact\nthat connected with the former are figures of the four classes of food\nanimals--quadrupeds, birds, reptiles (iguana), and fishes. The latter\nrefer to the hunter's occupation, being accompanied by figures of the\ndeer. Landa, in his descriptions of the various festivals, repeatedly\nalludes to the four Chacs or Bacabs which represent the four cardinal\npoints, and to the different classes of food animals presented where\nvessels were used. It is therefore more likely that the symbol is used\nin the places mentioned because of its phonetic value rather than as a\nsubstitute for the heads of lightning animals, for which supposed\nsubstitution Dr Seler admits he can not account.\n\nDr Seler refers also to the glyph on which the long nose deity is\nseated, Dres. 44a, shown in our plate LXVIII, 23. The prefix he\ninterprets by \"man, human being,\" and supposes the whole glyph refers to\nthe attributes of the Rain god. As the deity holds a fish in his hand,\nand is seen in the lowest division of the same plate in the act of\nseining fish, is it not more likely that this symbol should be rendered\nby _cayom_, \"a fisherman\"? This is appropriate and retains the phonetic\nvalue of the _imix_ symbol.\n\nIn the compound glyph 24, plate LXVIII, from Dres. 67b, to which Seler\nalso refers in the same connection, we see in the figure below the same\ndeity wading in water in which a fish is swimming. The right portion of\nthe symbol is the same as the last (plate LXVIII, 23) and presumably has\nthe same signification--_cayom_, \"a fisherman,\" or _cayomal_, \"to fish.\"\nI am unable to interpret the first or left-hand character; possibly it\nmay be found in one of the terms _chucay_, or _[c]aucay_, which Henderson\ngives as equivalents of _cayomal_. The latter--_[c]aucay_--would give to\nthis prefix precisely the phonetic value I have hitherto assigned it.\n\nThe next character Dr Seler refers to in this connection is that shown\nin plate LXVIII, 25, from Dres. 40c, where the long-nose god is seen\nbelow rowing a boat on the water. The adjoining symbol in the text is a\nfish. It is probable therefore that substantially the same\ninterpretation is to be given here.\n\nThe group shown in plate LXIV, 9, consisting of an _Imix_ and _Kan_\nsymbol, is of frequent occurrence in all the codices. The relation of\nthe characters in this combination varies, the order being frequently\nthe reverse of that given in the figure, and again one being placed on\ntop of the other. They frequently follow deity symbols, especially the\nsymbol of the so called \"Corn god,\" and in these instances seem to refer\nto some attribute of the divinity indicated. However, they are by no\nmeans confined to these relations, being found quite frequently in other\nconnections. The combination is occasionally borne upon the back of an\nindividual, as Dres. 16a, and on Tro. 21b it is on the back of a dog. Dr\nSeler concludes \"that it denotes the copal or the offering of incense.\"\nHowever, he subsequently[210-1] expresses the view that it may signify\n\"beans and maize.\" In a previous work[210-2] some reasons were presented\nby me for believing this combination was intended to denote bread or\nmaize bread. This belief is based on the statement by Landa in his\naccount of the sacrifices at the beginning of the year _Muluc_, that\nthey made \"images of dogs, in baked earth, carrying bread on the back,\"\nand the fact that in plate 21 of the Codex Tro., representing the\nsacrifices of this year, we see the figure of a dog with this _Kan-Imix_\ngroup on its back. This figure (plate LXIV, 10) probably represents the\nimages of which Landa speaks, and the symbols on the back, bread or food\nin the general sense. Further notice of this combination will be given\nunder the fourth day, _Kan_.\n\nThe character shown in plate LXVIII, 26, from Tro. 20*d, is erroneously\ngiven by Seler as an example of the _kan-imix_ symbol. The two glyphs on\nthe mat figure are unquestionably _imix_ symbols, though of the two\ndifferent types shown in plate LXIV, 1 and 5. He suggests that here it\nreplaces the deity symbol, but this is contradicted by the fact that in\nboth groups where it appears the deity symbol is present. The mat-like\nfigure, which is probably a determinative, shows that it refers to the\nsack, bag, or kind of hamper which the women figured below bear on the\nback, filled with corn, bones, etc. As _mucuc_ signifies \"portmanteau,\nbag, sack, etc,\" _mucub_ \"a bag or sack made of sackcloth,\" and\n_mucubcuch_ \"to carry anything in a sack or folded in a shawl,\" it is\nmore than probable we have in these words the signification of the\nsymbol. The duplication of the _imix_ symbol may be to denote the\nplural; or, as the words come from a root signifying \"secret, hidden,\ncovered,\" it may be to intensify. It is noticeable also that the latter\nor right-hand _Imix_ symbol is similar to that used for the mouth _Mac_.\n\nIn the right section of Dres. 41b is the glyph shown in plate LXIV, 11,\nwhich, according to the phonetic system that appears to prevail in this\nwriting, may be translated _yulpolic_, from _yulpol_, \"to smooth or\nplane wood,\" or, as given by Henderson (MS. Lexicon), \"to smooth, plane,\nor square timber, to beat off the log.\" This interpretation, which is\ngiven here merely because of its relation to the symbol which follows,\nis based in part on the following evidence: The left character, which\nhas _y_ as its chief phonetic element, is the same as the upper\ncharacter in the symbol for the month _Yax_ (plate LXIV, 12), and also\nthe upper character of the symbol for the month _Yaxkin_ (plate LXIV,\n13). Other evidence of its use with this value will be presented farther\non, and also in reference to the right character of the above-mentioned\nsymbol (plate LXIV, 11), which has been given _p_ as its chief phonetic\nelement. By reference to the figure below the text the appropriateness\nof this rendering is at once apparent, as here is represented an\nindividual in the act of chipping off the side of a tree. This he\nappears to be doing by holding in his left hand an instrument resembling\na frow, which he strikes with a hatchet.\n\nThe character immediately below the one above mentioned and belonging to\nthe same series is shown in plate LXIV, 14. It may be interpreted\n_mamachah_, \"to make flat by repeated strokes.\" The phonetic value of\nthe parts is obtained in this way. The upper character with two wings is\nLanda's _ma_, except that the circular wings contain the lines or\nstrokes which the bishop has omitted, and which appear to indicate the\n_m_ sound and are observed in the _Imix_ symbol. Colonel Mallery,\ncomparing this with the sign of negation made by the Indians and that of\nthe Egyptians given by Champollion (our plate LXIV, 15), concludes that\nit is derived from the symmetrically extended arms with the hands curved\nslightly downward. This will furnish an explanation of the strokes in\nthe terminal circles. The left of the two lower characters is almost\nidentical with the symbol for the month _Mac_ (plate LXIV, 4), omitting\nthe _ca_ glyph. The lower right-hand character is similar to the symbol\nfor the month _Chuen_. We thus obtain legitimately the sounds _ma\nma-ch_, whether we consider the parts truly phonetic or only ikonomatic.\n\nFor further illustration of the use of this symbol and evidence of\nphoneticism, the reader is referred to the article in the _American\nAnthropologist_ above mentioned.\n\nThe fact that a symbol is used to denote a given Maya day does not\nprove, supposing it to be in any sense phonetic, that the Maya name\ngives the original equivalent. It may have been adopted to represent the\nolder name in the Tzental, or borrowed from the Zapotec calendar and\nretained in the Maya calendar for the new name given in that tongue.\nHowever, the symbol for this first day, which has substantially the same\nname in the Maya and Tzental, appears to represent the name in these\nlanguages and to be in some degree phonetic, _m_ being the chief\nphonetic element represented by it. The crosshatching in the little\ncircle at the top, seen in some of the older forms found in the\ninscriptions, may indicate, as will later be seen, the _x_ or _ch_\nsound, thus giving precisely the radical _m-x_.\n\nIt may be said, in reference to the signification of the names of the\nday in different dialects, that no settled or entirely satisfactory\nconclusion has been reached in regard to either.\n\nThe Cakchiquel word _imox_ is translated by the grammarian Ximenes as\n\"swordfish,\" thus corresponding with the usual interpretation of the\nMexican _cipactli_. Dr Seler thinks, however, that the Maya names were\nderived, as above stated, from _im_. Nevertheless he concludes that the\nprimitive signification of both the Maya and Mexican symbols is the\nearth, \"who brings forth all things from her bosom and takes all living\nthings again into it.\" If we may judge from its use, there is no doubt\nthat the Mexican _cipactli_ figure is a symbol of the earth or\nunderworld. The usual form of the day symbol in the Mexican codices is\nshown in plate LXIV, 16, and more elaborately in plate LXIV, 17. As\nproof that it indicates the earth or underworld, there is shown on plate\n73 of the Borgian Codex an individual, whose heart has been torn from\nhis breast, plunging downward through the open jaws of the monster into\nthe shades or earth below. On plate 76 of the same codex, the extended\njaws open upward, and into them a number of persons are marching in\nregular order. These apparently represent the thirteen months of the\nsacred year. One has passed on and disappeared from view, and the other\ntwelve are following with bowed heads. It would seem from these to be\nnot only symbolic of the earth or hades, but also to have some relation\nto time.\n\nFor positive proof that it is sometimes used to denote the earth, or\nthat from which vegetation comes, it is only necessary to refer to the\nlower right-hand figure of plate 12, Borgian Codex. Here is Tlaloc\nsending down rain upon the earth, from which the enlivened plants are\nspringing forth and expanding into leaf and blossom. The earth, on which\nthey stand and from which they arise, is represented by the figure of\nthe mythical _Cipactli_.\n\nIt is quite probable that the monster on plates 4 and 5 of the Dresden\nCodex, which appears to be of the same genus, is a time symbol, and also\nthat on plate 74 of the same codex. It is therefore more than likely\nthat the animal indicated by the Mexican name of the day is mythical,\nrepresented according to locality by some known animal which seems to\nindicate best the mythical conception. Some figures evidently refer to\nthe alligator, and others apparently to the iguana; that on plates 4 and\n5 of the Dresden Codex is purely mythical, but contains reptilian\ncharacteristics.\n\nDr Brinton, probably influenced to some extent by the apparent\nsignification of the Nahuatl name and symbol, explains the other names\nas follows:\n\n This leads me to identify it [the Maya name] with, the Maya _mex_\n or _meex_, which is the name of a fish (the \"pez arana,\" \"un\n pescado que tiene muchos brazos\"), probably so called from another\n meaning of _mex_, \"the beard.\" ... This identification brings this\n day name into direct relation to the Zapotec and Nahuatl names. In\n the former, _chiylla_, sometimes given as _pi-chilla_, is\n apparently from _bi-chilla-beo_, water lizard, and Nahuatl\n _cipactli_ certainly means some fish or fish-like animal--a\n swordfish, alligator, or the like, though exactly which is not\n certain, and probably the reference with them was altogether\n mythical.\n\nDr Seler, in his subsequent paper, gives the following explanation of\nthe Zapotec name _chilla_ or _chijlla_:\n\n For this I find in the lexicon three principal meanings: One is the\n cubical bean (wurfel bohne). \"Pichijlla, frisolillos o havas con\n que echan las suertes los sortilegos\" [beans used by the sorcerers\n in casting lots or telling fortunes]; another meaning is \"the\n ridge\" (pichijlla, lechijlla, chijllatani, loma o cordillera de\n sierra); another is \"the crocodile\" (cocodrillo, lagarto grande de\n agua); and another \"swordfish\" (pella-pichijlla-tao, espadarte\n pescado). Finally, we have chilla-tao, \"the great Chilla,\" given\n again as one of the names of the highest being. Here it seems to me\n that the signification \"crocodile\" is the original one, and thus\n far suitable. For the manner in which the first day character is\n delineated in Mexican and Zapotec picture writing [our plate LXIV,\n 16] shows undoubtedly the head of the crocodile with the movable\n snapping upper jaw, which is so characteristic of the animal.\n\nAttention is called to the apparently closely related word as given by\nPerez--_mech_, _ixmech_, \"lagartija.\"\n\nIt will not be out of place here to refer to a superstition pervading\nthe islands of the Pacific ocean, which seems strangely coincident with\nthe conception of the physical symbol of this day. This is a\nmythological monster known in some sections by the name _Taniwha_, and\nin others as _moko_ or _mo'o_.\n\nDr Edward Tregear[214-1] speaks of it as follows:\n\n Taniwha were water monsters generally. They mostly inhabited lakes\n and streams, but sometimes the sea. Sometimes the beast was a land\n animal, a lizard, etc, but the true _taniwha_ is a water kelpie.\n\nMr Kerry Nichols,[214-2] speaking of these monsters, says:\n\n With the other fabulous creations of Maori mythology were the\n _taniwhas_ or evil demons, mysterious monsters in the form of\n gigantic lizards, who were said to inhabit subterranean caves, the\n deep places of lakes and rivers, and to guard tabued districts.\n They were on the alert to upset canoes and to devour men. Indeed,\n these fabulous monsters not only entered largely into the religious\n superstitions, but into the poetry and prose of Maori tradition.\n\nThe Hawaiian _Mo'o_ or _Moko_ appears, from the following statement by\nJudge Fornander, to have been applied sometimes to this mythological\nmonster:\n\n The _Mo'o_ or _Moko_ mentioned in tradition--reptiles and\n lizards--were of several kinds--the _mo'o_ with large, sharp,\n glistening teeth; the talking mo'o, _moo-olelo_; the creeping mo'o,\n _moo-kolo_; the roving, wandering mo'o, _moo-pelo_; the watchful\n mo'o, _moo-kaala_; the prophesying mo'o, _moo-kaula_; the deadly\n mo'o, _moo-make-a-kane_. The Hawaiian legends frequently speak of\n _mo'o_ of extraordinary size living in caverns, amphibious in their\n nature, and being the terror of the inhabitants.[214-3]\n\nAccording to the Codex Fuen-leal, at the beginning of things the gods\nmade thirteen heavens, and beneath them the primeval water, in which\nthey placed a fish called _cipactli_ (queses como caiman). This marine\nmonster brought the dirt and clay from which they made the earth, which,\ntherefore, is represented in their paintings resting on the back of a\nfish.\n\nA similar conception is found both in Malay and Hindu mythology,\ndiffering somewhat in details, but always relating to some monster\nreptile. In the Manek Maya, one of the ancient epics of Java, Anta Boga,\nthe deity presiding over the lowest region of the earth, is a\ndragon-like monster with ninety nostrils. The same conception is found\nalso among other peoples.\n\nIn the Tonga language _moco_ is \"a species of lizard;\" in Hawaiian\n_mo'o_ or _moko_ is \"the general name for lizards,\" and the same word\nsignifies \"lizard\" in Samoan; _moko-moko_ is the New Zealand (Maori)\nname for a small lizard. Taylor[214-4] says that _moko-titi_ was a\n\"lizard god.\"\n\nIt is therefore evident that a superstition regarding some reptilian\nwater monster prevailed throughout the Pacific islands. It is true also\nthat the Nahuatl _cipactli_ certainly means some amphibious or water\nanimal--a swordfish, alligator, or something of the kind, though exactly\nwhich is not certain--or, what is more likely, the reference was\naltogether mythical.\n\nIt is possible, and perhaps probable, as stated above, that the Maya\nsymbol of this day was taken originally from the conventional method of\nrepresenting the female breast. Drs Seler and Schellhas appear to be of\nthis opinion. But it does not necessarily follow from this that the\ncharacter used for the name of the day has any reference to the female\nbreast, as it is more likely used in this relation for its phonetic\nvalue alone, _m_ being the chief phonetic element indicated thereby.\n\nIf the supposition herein advanced that the combination shown in plate\nLXIV, 9, denotes bread or food be correct, it is possible that the\nsymbol is also sometimes used to indicate \"maize,\" _ixim_ or _xim_, on\naccount of its phonetic value. As will be shown farther on, the _kan_\nsymbol is not only used to denote the grain of maize and maize in the\ngeneral sense, but it appears to denote in some cases bread or the\ntortilla.\n\n\nTHE SECOND DAY\n\nMaya, _ik_; Tzental, _igh_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _ik'_; Zapotec, _gui_,\n_ni_, _laa_, _laala_ or _liaa_; Nahuatl, _ehecatl_.\n\nThe form of the symbol of this day presents a number of minor\nvariations, the more important of which are shown in plate LXIV, 18-26.\nSymbol 18 is the form given by Landa; 19-24, those found in the codices;\n25 is from the left slab of the Palenque tablet or altar plate, and 26\nis from the Tikal inscription.\n\nSo far as this character can satisfactorily be interpreted, where used\notherwise than as a day symbol, the signification appears to be wind,\nspirit, or life, whether considered phonetic or not. As illustrations of\nits use, the following examples are presented:\n\nAt the right side of Dres. 72c are the three characters shown in plate\nLXIV, 27, 28, and 29, which follow one another downward, as shown in the\nfigure, the three forming one of the short columns of the series to\nwhich they belong. From the lowest, which is the _ik_ symbol, waving\nblue lines, indicating water, extend downward to the bottom of the\ndivision. If these glyphs are considered ideographic and not phonetic,\nit is still possible to give them a reasonable interpretation. The\nfalling water shows that they relate to the rain storm or tempest. The\nuppermost character, which appears to be falling over on its side, we\nmay assume to be the symbol of a house or building of some kind;[215-1]\nthe dotted lines extending from its surface may well be supposed to\nrepresent rain driven from the roof. There is, however, another possible\ninterpretation of this character which appears to be consistent with\nMexican and Central American mythology. It is that it indicates a house,\nvessel, or region of the heavens which holds the waters of the upper\nworld. The turning on the side would, in this case, denote the act of\npouring out the water in the form of rain. This supposition (although I\nam inclined to adopt the former) appears to be supported by the fact\nthat this character is used in the Dresden Codex as one of the cloud or\nheaven symbols, as, for example, on plates 66 and 68. According to\nRamirez, the Mexican wind and rain gods occupy a large mansion in the\nheavens, which is divided into four apartments, with a court in the\nmiddle. In this court stand four enormous vases of water, and an\ninfinite number of very small slaves (the rain drops) stand ready to dip\nout the water from one or the other of these vases and pour it on the\nearth in showers.[216-1] As the lowest character in the group mentioned\nis the _ik_ symbol, its appropriate rendering here is beyond question\n\"wind;\" therefore, as two out of the three characters, and the rain sign\nbelow, indicate the rain storm, we may take for granted that the middle\ncharacter probably refers to lightning or thunder.\n\nAdditional reasons for this interpretation are given in a previous\npaper[216-2] and need not be repeated here, as the only object now in\nview in referring to them is to show that the _ik_ symbol is there used\nto denote wind.\n\nIn the third and fourth divisions of plate 16* Codex Troano, five\npersons are represented, each holding in his hand an _ik_ symbol from\nwhich arises what appear to be the sprouting leaves of a plant, probably\nmaize (plate LXIV, 30, 31). This is interpreted by Dr Seler as the heart\njust taken from the sacrificed victim, the leaf-shape figures\nrepresenting the vapor rising from the warm blood and flesh. It is\nunnecessary to give here his reasons for this belief, as the suggestion\npresented below, although wholly different, gives to the symbol in this\nplace substantially the same meaning that he assigns to it, to wit,\nlife, vitality. It is probable that the figure is intended to represent\nthe germination of a plant--the springing forth of the blade from the\nseed--and that the _ik_ symbol indicates plant life, or rather the\nspirit which the natives believe dwells in plants and causes them to\ngrow. Seler's suggestion that in this connection _ik_ may be compared to\n_kan_ is appropriate, but this comparison does not tend to the support\nof his theory. Take, for example, the sprouting _kan_ symbols on Tro.\n29b, to which he refers. There can be no doubt that the symbol\nrepresents the grain of maize from which the sprouting leaves are rising\n(plate LXIV, 32). In one place a bird is pulling it up; at another place\na small quadruped is attacking it; at another the Tlaloc is planting (or\nperhaps replanting) the seed.\n\nIn the lowest division of the same plate (Tro. 29) are four individuals,\nthree of whom, as may be seen by studying the similar figures in the\ndivision above, are anthropomorphic symbols of corn; the other an earth\nor underworld deity. One of the former holds in his hands a _kan_\nsymbol, which is colored to signify maize; the others hold _ik_ symbols.\nThere are two interpretations which may be given this symbolic\nrepresentation--one, that the _ik_ glyphs are intended to denote plant\nlife, that which causes plants to spring up and grow; the other, that\nthey denote wind, which in that country was often destructive to growing\ncorn.\n\nVery distinct reference is made in the \"Relacion de la Villa\nValladolid\"[217-1] to the injurious effects of winds on the maize crop.\nIt is related in this report, which appears to have been of an official\ncharacter, made in 1579, that--\n\n From June till the middle of August it rains very hard and there\n are strong winds; from the latter date the rains are not copious\n and the wind blows strongly from the north, which causes much\n mortality among the natives, and Spaniards as well, for they\n contract catarrh and _barriga_ (dropsy?). This north wind destroys\n the maize crops, which form the main sustenance of both natives and\n Spaniards, for they use no other bread.\n\nThere can be no doubt that most, if not all, of the figures on this\nplate (Tro. 29) are intended to represent the injurious and destructive\nagencies to which maize and other cultivated plants were subject. Birds\nand quadrupeds pull up the sprouting seed and pull down and devour the\nripening grain; worms gnaw the roots and winds break down the stalks,\none out of four escaping injury and giving full return to the planter.\nThe latter is therefore probably the correct interpretation, the only\ndifficult feature being the presence of the Earth god, which agrees\nbetter with the first suggestion.\n\nIt is to be observed that the series on Tro. 29c really commences with\nthe right-hand group on 30c. The figure here holds in his hand an _ik_\nsymbol. Following this, the left group on 29c shows a bird pecking the\ncorn; the next, a small quadruped tearing it down; the next, a worm\ngnawing at the root of a plant; and the fourth, or right-hand group, a\ncorn figure holding a _kan_ symbol, indicating the mature grain, the\nuninjured portion of the crop. It would therefore appear that the _ik_\nsymbol in this series denotes wind.\n\nAs additional proof that the symbol is used to indicate \"wind,\"\nreference is made to Tro. 24a. Here the long-nose Rain god, or Maya\nTlaloc, is seen amidst the storm, clothed in black and bearing on his\narm a shield on which are two _ik_ symbols (plate LXIV, 33), doubtless\nindicative of the fierceness of the tempest. In front of him is the Corn\ngod, bending beneath the pouring rain. On plate 25, same codex, lower\ndivision, the storm is again symbolized, and the _ik_ symbol is present\nhere also.\n\nIt seems from these facts to be quite certain that the value of the\nsymbol in the codices, so far as it can be satisfactorily determined,\ncorresponds in signification with the Maya name.\n\nReferring again to Dr Seler's theory that the plant-like figures on Tro.\n15*, 16* indicate the freshly extracted heart and the vapor arising\ntherefrom, the following additional items are noted: He says that in the\ntext the scene below, or at least these sprouting-plant figures, are\nexpressed by hieroglyphs 27-29, plate LXVIII. His comparison with the\nso-called heart figures from the Mexican codices can scarcely be\nregarded as convincing, for there is hardly any resemblance. Moreover,\nhe omits to furnish an explanation, on his theory, of the fact that some\nof these rising \"vapors\" are crowned with blossoms or fruit (plate LXIV,\n31).\n\nI think it quite probable that Dr Seler, although not accepting the\ntheory of phoneticism, has been influenced to some extent by the form of\nthe right-hand character of the glyph shown in plate LXVIII, 27. This is\nmuch like Landa's _o_, and _ol_ in Maya denotes \"heart, etc.\"\n\nAccording to Brasseur, _oloh_ signifies \"a germ\" and \"to germinate;\"\n_hokol_ also has about the same meaning. This furnishes a consistent and\nappropriate explanation of the figures, and gives at the same time the\nphonetic value of the glyph. I have not determined the prefix\nsatisfactorily, but presume it is some word having _ch'_ or _tz'_ as its\nchief phonetic element, which signifies \"little,\" \"plant,\" or something\nsimilar.\n\nI have not determined the other symbols to which Seler alludes in this\nconnection, but some of them, as may be seen by comparison with other\npassages, do not have special reference to the plant-like figures.\n\nWhether the little sharp-corner square seen in the upper right-hand\ncharacter of the compound symbols shown in plate LXVI, 28 and 55, and\nothers of similar form, are to be taken as _ik_ glyphs is yet an\nundecided question. Dr Seler appears to have excluded them from this\ncategory in his paper, so frequently referred to, though he subsequently\nbrings them into this relation. But in these places he gives the glyph\nthe signification \"fire\" or \"flame.\" It is possible that in some of the\ncases to which he refers he is correct, as, for example, in regard to\nthe figure shown in plate LXVIII, 30, from Dres. 25, where it is in the\nmidst of the blaze. If so, the word equivalent must be _kak_, as it is\nseemingly a variant of _ik_, and hence may be supposed to have the _k_\nsound. This will agree with his interpretation of plate LXVI, 29, by\n_kinichkakmo_; but in this case we must give _ich_ as the value of the\nso-called _ben_ symbol. This, however, is not so very objectionable, as\nthere are other places where the chief phonetic element of the _ben_\nglyph appears to be _i_. It is also to be remembered that it is much\nlike Landa's _i_. It is likewise true, as will hereafter be shown, that\nthe value _ben_ does not appear to hold good where it occurs in\ncombination with other symbols. However, until a satisfactory rendering\nof this little four-corner _ik_ (?) symbol in some other place than the\nfire is found, I am hardly prepared to give full acceptance to Dr\nSeler's supposition.\n\nThe Zapotec names are somewhat difficult to bring into harmony with the\nothers. Dr Brinton's solution is as follows:\n\n In that tongue we have _uii_, air, wind; _chiic_, breath; which we\n may bring into relation with _gui_; and we find _guiiebee_,\n wind-and-water cloud (nube con vient y agua). Dr Seler prefers to\n derive _gui_ from _quii_, fire, flame, the notion of which is often\n associated with wind.\n\nIt was probably this notion and the fact that the little four-corner\n_ik_ (?) symbol is sometimes seen in the flame, which caused this\nauthority to believe the symbol denotes \"fire,\" \"flame.\" In the\nmanuscript Zapotec vocabulary by E. A. Fuller, \"wind\" is _bii_.\n\nDr Brinton thinks that _ni_ is the radical of _nici_, to grow, increase,\ngain life. He says:\n\n _Laa_, or _laala_, is a word of many meanings, as warmth, heat,\n reason, or intelligence. The sense common to all these expressions\n seems to be that of life, vitality.\n\nThe form of the Mexican symbol for the day _Ehecatl_ (wind), shown in\nplate LXIV, 34, and also of the mouths of the female figures on plates\n26 and 28, Troano Codex, which are emblematic of the storm, appear to be\ntaken from the bird bill. The bird, as is well known, is a wind symbol\nwith many peoples. It has been so esteemed among several tribes of\nAmerican Indians, and also by peoples of the Old World. As _nii_ or _ni_\nsignifies \"nose, beak, point\" in Maya and several cognate dialects, is\nit not possible that in this is to be found an explanation of the second\nZapotec name? In this case, however, we must assume that the term is\nborrowed, as in this language _xi_ or _xie_ is the term for \"nose.\" I\nnotice, however, that the name for bird is given as _viguini_ and\n_piguiini_. If _pi_ (_vi_) is a prefix, as seems probable from the word\nfor \"hen,\" _guitii_, then we have some ground for believing that the\nfirst Zapotec name has the same fundamental idea as the Mexican symbol.\n\nIt therefore would seem that it is not difficult to understand the\norigin of the Mexican symbol. Examining plate 10, Borgian Codex, which\nappears to represent the home of the winds, we see that, though mostly\nfurnished with human bodies, they have bird claws as well as bills. But\nthe origin of the Maya symbol is more difficult to account for. Dr Seler\nremarks:\n\n It is difficult to determine the original idea of this character.\n Figure 210 [our plate LXIV, 24] and the forms on the reliefs--if we\n have correctly interpreted these--lead us to think that the wind\n cross, or the figure of the Tau resulting from it, was the origin\n of the character. However, the forms of the Cod. Tro. are not\n easily reconciled with this.\n\nDr Brinton[219-1] asserts, without heeding Dr Seler's caution, that it\nis the sign of the four directions or four winds--the wind\ncross--evidently alluding to the sharp-corner square seen in our plate\nLXVI, 28. But he seems to have overlooked the fact that it is never thus\nrepresented in the day symbol. Moreover, no satisfactory proof has been\npresented showing that this form has this signification. Seler gives it\nin some places, as above stated, the signification \"fire,\" \"flame;\" and\nif his interpretation of plate LXVI, 29 by _Kinich-kakmo_ be correct, as\nBrinton seems to think it is, his interpretations are consistent.\nHowever, Seler's assertion that \"the forms of the Cod. Tro. are not\neasily reconciled with this\" must be admitted. In the codices this\nglyph, as this author remarks, \"rather brings to mind the idea of\nhanging,\" often resembling a bunch of grapes.\n\nI take for granted the symbol, when standing for the day, is not\npictorial or ideographic, but is adopted for its sound value. If this\nsupposition be correct, then it must be a conventional representation of\nsomething the Maya name of which is _ik_ or that has substantially this\nphonetic value. The form of the Mexican symbol, as above indicated,\nshows that in selecting it reference was had to the bird bill, to which\npossibly may have been added the idea of blowing forcibly from the\nmouth, a common method of indicating wind. (See for example the\nbird-mouth female, Tro. 25b, where the _Ik_ symbol is present.) But it\nseems impossible to find in the symbol any reference to the bird, bird\nbill, or the act of blowing, or in fact anything indicating, even by a\nconventionalized figure, wind, air, spirit, or breath. Hence it is\nreasonable to conclude that it has been selected only because of the\nresemblance in sound of the thing it represents to the name _Ik_. I\nwould be inclined to believe that the most usual form is the\nrepresentation of a tooth or two teeth, the name being used for its\nphonetic value only, but for the very troublesome fact that I can find\nno name for tooth in Maya to sustain this view. If we could suppose it\nto be a conventionalized ideogram of an insect, we would obtain the\ndesired sound, as Perez explains _ikel_ by \"bicho, insecto, polilla,\ngorgojo.\" It must, however, be confessed that none of these suggestions\nare satisfactory.\n\nThe following additional references to the bird as a symbol of the wind\nare appropriate at this point.\n\nNot only is the day _Ehecatl_ represented in the Mexican codices by a\nbird's head, but we see a bird perched upon a tree at each of the\ncardinal points on plate 44 of the Fejervary Codex. Birds are also\nperched on three of the four trees representing the cardinal points on\nplate 65 of the Vatican Codex.\n\nIn speaking of the myths of the Muyscas, Dr Brinton[220-1] says:\n\n In the cosmogonical myths of the Muyscas, this [alluding to a\n certain name] was the home or source of light, and was a name\n applied to the demiurgic force. In that mysterious dwelling, so\n their account ran, light was shut up and the world lay in primeval\n gloom. At a certain time the light manifested itself, and the dawn\n of the first morning appeared, the light being carried to the four\n quarters of the earth by great black birds, who blew the air and\n winds from their beaks.\n\nThe Javanese also assigned a bird to each of the cardinal points,\ndoubtless with substantially the same mythological concept.\n\nCommenting on a passage of the Popol Vuh, in which the name _Voc_ is\nmentioned, the same author[220-2] says:\n\n The name _Voc_ is that of a species of bird (Cakchiquel _Vaku_).\n Coto describes it as having green plumage, and a very large and\n curved bill, apparently a kind of parrot. Elsewhere in the myth\n (page 70) it is said to be the messenger of Hurakan, resting\n neither in the heaven nor in the underworld, but in a moment flying\n to the sky, to Hurakan, who dwells there.\n\nThis is unquestionably the wind symbolized as a bird. The name for wind\nin Malay is _bayu_, and _Vayu_ is a Wind god in Hindu mythology. Garud,\nthe Bird deity of the Hindu Pantheon, who plays such an important r\u00f4le\nin the Mahabharata, and is so frequently termed therein \"the foremost\nranger of the skies,\" is apparently the Storm god, the equivalent of the\nMaya _Hurukan_.\n\nWe may remark incidentally that a curious coincidence is found in the\nfact that there appears to be a relation between the wind and monkeys in\nthe mythology both of the Hindu and of the natives of Central America,\nor at least of Mexico. Hanuman, the Monkey god, who plays such an\nimportant part in the Ramayana, was the son of Pavana, the chief Wind\ndeity. According to Brasseur, in his introductory essay to the _Popol\nVuh_, it is stated in the Codex Chimalpopoca that the men were, on a day\n_Ehecatl_, changed by the wind into monkeys. On what peculiar\nmythological conception this idea is based I am unable to state.\n\n\nTHE THIRD DAY\n\nMaya, _akbal_; Tzental, _votan_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _akbal_; Zapotec,\n_gu\u00e8la_; Nahuatl _calli_.\n\nThe form of the Maya character as given by Landa is shown in plate LXIV,\n35; those usually found in the codices are presented in figures 36 and\n37 of the same plate. A slight variation which sometimes occurs in the\nDresden Codex is given in plate LXIV, 38. In figure 39 of this plate\ncircular dots take the place of the teeth. In another variant, shown in\nfigure 40, there is a row of dots immediately below the broken cross\nline. The forms shown in figures 41 and 42 are from the inscriptions. As\nwill be seen by comparing figures 36 and 38 with plate LXV, 64, this\nglyph, in some of its forms, resembles somewhat closely the _chuen_\nsymbol, but is generally readily distinguished from it by the wavy line\nacross the face and the absence of the little divided oblong at the top,\nwhich is mostly present in the _chuen_ symbol. The lower triangle is\nusually sharp and extends to the top in the _akbal_ symbol, while that\nin the _chuen_ glyph is broad or rounded and does not extend to the top.\n\nThe signification of the Maya and Cakchiquel names, and also of the\nZapotec, is \"night\" or \"darkness.\" The Tzental name is that of a\ncelebrated hero, which, according to Dr Brinton, is derived from the\nTzental word _uotan_, \"heart\" or \"breast.\" This explanation is accepted\nby Seler, as Bishop Nu\u00f1ez de la Vega, the principal authority regarding\nthis mythological personage, says that \"in every province he was held to\nbe the heart of the village.\" Dr Seler also adds that \"'heart of the\nvillage' is in Mexican called _tepeyollotl_, and that is the name of the\ndeity of the third day character, _calli_\" (plate LXIV, 46).\n\nThe Mexican name _calli_ signifies house. The method by which Dr Brinton\nbrings this and the Tzental names into harmony with the idea of darkness\nor night is as follows:\n\n The house is that which is within, is dark, shuts out the light,\n etc. Possibly the derivation was symbolic. Votan was called \"the\n heart of the nation,\" and at Tlazoaloyan, in Soconusco, he\n constructed, by breathing or blowing, a \"dark house,\" in which he\n concealed the sacred objects of his cult. In this myth we find an\n unequivocal connection of the idea of \"darkness\" and \"house.\"\n\nDr Seler's explanation is substantially the same; he differs somewhat,\nhowever, from Dr Brinton in regard to the derivation of the word _votan_\n(or _uotan_), as he obtains it from the Maya _ol_, _uol_, \"heart, soul,\nwill, etc,\" and _tan_, \"in the midst,\" also \"surface, level, extent,\nfront.\" He concludes, therefore, if _uo_ signifies heart, that _uotan_\ndenotes \"the inmost heart\" or \"heart of the expanse.\" It is proper,\nhowever, to call attention to the fact that Dr Brinton's derivation of\nthe name in his \"American Hero Myths\" is slightly different from that\ngiven in his \"Native Calendar,\" above mentioned. In the former he says\n_uotan_ \"is from the pure Maya root word _tan_, which means primarily\n'the breast,' or that which is in the front or in the middle of the\nbody; with the possessive prefix it becomes _utan_. In Tzental this word\nmeans both 'breast' and 'heart.'\" It must be admitted that these\nexplanations are apparently somewhat strained, yet it is possible they\nare substantially correct, as they appear to receive some support from\nthe figures in the Mexican codices.\n\nPlate 75 of the Borgian Codex, which is in fact the lower part of the\nfigure on plate 76, heretofore alluded to, although having reference to\nthe underworld, appears to be in part a delineation of night. The large\nblack figure probably represents night, the smaller star-like figures\ndenoting stars, and the large one the night sun, or moon. The house in\nthe lower right-hand corner, with the black lining, is the house of\ndarkness. The wind symbol above the roof indicates relationship with the\nwinds. Dr Seler interprets these star-like figures as sun symbols, but\nthe number found together on this plate forbids the supposition that\nthey represent suns. Moreover, the association with the dark figure\nrenders it probable that they are here used to denote stars.\n\nThere is, however, a lack in these explanations of a connecting link,\nwhich seems necessary to render them entirely satisfactory. The name\nappears to be intimately associated with that for serpent; or perhaps it\nwould be more correct to say that this mythological personage appears to\nbe intimately connected in some way with the serpent. The title of the\nTzental manuscript containing the myth was, according to Cabrera, \"Proof\nthat I am a Chan,\" which signifies \"serpent.\" His chief city was\n_Nachan_, \"the house of the serpent;\" his treasure house was a cavern.\nSimply designating him by \"the heart of the nation,\" \"heart of the\nvillage,\" does not appear to furnish a full explanation of his\nattributes or characteristics.\n\nAs the symbol of this day is frequently connected with cloud and\nrain-storm series, as in Tro. 25a, where it appears to be that from\nwhich rain is falling, its signification in these places would appear to\nbe \"cloud,\" which carries with it the idea of shade, shadow, and\ndarkness. This being true, the most likely supposition in regard to the\norigin of the symbol is, that it was designed to represent the cloud\nbreaking into drops and falling as rain--in other words, the weeping\ncloud. Such appears beyond question to be its signification in Tro. 25a\nand in other places in the same and other codices. This supposition is\nalso consistent with the fact that some of the symbols, especially those\nof the inscriptions (plate LXIV, 42), have dots along the broken line,\nwhich may indicate the raindrops into which the cloud is breaking. I am\ntherefore not inclined to accept Dr Seler's supposition that it is\nintended to represent the opening to a cavern, after the conventional\nmethod adopted by the Mexican artists. It is improbable, though not\nimpossible, that the older system may have adopted some features from\nthe younger. Moreover, this supposition on the part of Dr Seler is in\ndirect conflict with his statement in the immediately preceding\nparagraph. He says:\n\n It is to be observed as applying chiefly to the manuscripts and the\n reliefs, that the two side points which project like teeth from the\n inner circle of the character could in no wise have signified\n teeth. Such an interpretation is contradicted by the occasional\n change of their position [plate LXIV, 47] and the fact that they\n also appear now and then exactly like eyes [plate LXIV, 39].\n\nNow the Mexican cavern symbol, as shown in his figures and as given in\nPe\u00f1afiel's \"Nombres Geogr\u00e1ficos,\" appears to be the open serpent mouth\nwith teeth and fangs. It is therefore more probable that the symbol was\nderived as above indicated. Among the Indian pictographs given by\nColonel Mallery[223-1] as representing clouds are those shown in plate\nLXIV, 43 and 44. An Ojibwa cloud symbol[223-2] is shown in plate LXIV,\n45, in which the circular outline denotes the sky. It seems quite likely\nthat the Maya symbol is intended to convey precisely the same idea. On\nthe left (bottom) of plate 70, Borgian Codex, is a curved or arch-like\nfigure somewhat on the same order as those given. It appears to\nrepresent the sky--but darkened sky, indicating night or obscurity. On\nits upper surface are nine heads, which probably signify the \"Nine Lords\nof the Night.\" Below it is a black figure. On each side are two figures,\nthe color of the four differing--one blue, another yellow, another\nblack, and the other red. These are probably the regents of the cardinal\npoints.\n\nIf this supposition be correct, the symbol is purely ideographic and not\nphonetic or ikonomatic; but this does not forbid the idea that when used\nin other combinations it is used phonetically to give the chief sound\nelement of the word indicated by the ideograph. Dr Seler claims, as\ncorroborative of his supposition, that \"all symbols which are combined\nwith the name of the third character are to be fully explained through\nthe word 'cavern.'\" But it is far more likely that this (so far as it\nholds good) is due to the fact that the symbol is used because of its\nphonetic value or its chief phonetic element, _ak_, which is the same as\nthe chief element of the Maya name for cavern--_actun_, _actan_, _aktan_\n(Henderson, MS. Lexicon).\n\nIf this supposition be correct, it may furnish a clue to the name of the\ndeity whose symbol is shown in plate LXIV, 48. Here the left-hand\ncharacter is the _akbal_ symbol (though not complete) surrounded by a\ncircle of dots. This circle, Dr Seler contends, often indicates flames\nwhich consume the object it surrounds, or light which emanates from that\nobject. If the whole is but a simple ideogram, it must be taken, as a\nwhole, as indicating a particular mythological personage; otherwise it\nis in part phonetic, or given after the Mexican rebus method of denoting\nnames. If not a simple ideogram, this prefix is most probably used in\nsome sense phonetically with reference chiefly to the _k_ sound. The\ncircle of dots is used here probably to indicate the vowel sound _u_ or\n_o_. But in making this suggestion I do not by any means intend to\nsuggest that the Maya scribes had reached that stage of advancement\nwhere they could indicate each sound by a character. All I wish to\nassert is that I find in numerous cases characters accompanied by this\ncircle of dots where the proper interpretation appears to be a word\nhaving as its prominent vowel element _u_ or _o_. Hence the inference\nthat there is some relation between this circle and these vowel\nsounds--this and nothing more.\n\nIn Dres. 16c is the symbol shown in plate LXIV, 49. This, as I have\nshown elsewhere,[224-1] represents the _kukuitz_ or Quetzal figured\nbelow the text. Here are encircling lines of dots, and in the Maya name\nthe _u_ sound repeated; and here also is Landa's _ku_. In Dres. 47c the\nsymbol for the month _Mol_ is given as shown in plate LXIV, 50. Here\nagain is seen the circle of dots, and the vowel appears to hold good in\nother places. We see it in Landa's first _o_. It will also assist us in\ngiving at least a consistent interpretation to the strange character\nshown in plate LXIV, 51, which occurs repeatedly on plate 19 of the Tro.\nCodex. In the pictures below are individuals apparently, and as\ninterpreted by most authorities, engaged in grinding paint or other\nsubstance or in making fire. The right half of the glyph, including the\ncircle of dots and crosshatching might, according to the value\nheretofore given these elements, be rendered by _huck_, \"to rub, grind,\npound, pulverize;\" which certainly agrees with the interpretation\nusually given the pictures below. Possibly the whole glyph maybe\ninterpreted by _cecelhuchah_, \"to triturate.\" While this, so far as it\nrelates to the left portion of the glyph, is a mere suggestion, it\nagrees with the fact that the ornamented or crossbarred border is found\nin the symbol for _Cib_, and the three dots with Landa's _e_.[224-2]\n\nIn Tro. 11*d is the character shown in plate LXIV, 52. As the right\nportion is the upper part of the symbol for _chikin_, \"west\" (see plate\nLXIV, 53), its phonetic value may be a derivative of _kuch_, _kuchnahi_,\n_kuchah_, \"to spin, to draw out into threads.\" Henderson gives _chuch_\nas an equivalent. As the subfix in plate LXIV, 48, is the character I\nhave usually interpreted by _u_, this would give us some of the elements\nof the name _Kukulcan_ and not _Itzamna_, as Seler and Schellhas\nsuppose. Possibly, however, the deity represented may be _Baklum-Chaam_,\nthe god adored at Ti-ho and usually considered, though without apparent\njustification, as the Maya Priapus.\n\nThe somewhat similar character, plate LXIV, 55, from Tro. 18*c, which Dr\nSeler considers synonymous, is probably essentially distinct, as it\nbears a somewhat stronger resemblance to the _chuen_ than to the _akbal_\nsymbol. In character 54, plate LXIV, from Dres. 17b, which denotes the\nvulture or rapacious bird figured below the text, it probably indicates\nthe _c_ sound, as the most reasonable interpretation of the symbol is\n_hchom_, \"the sopilote\" (Perez), or _hchuy_, \"a hawk or eagle.\" If the\ncharacter shown in plate LXIV, 54, is intended to indicate the bird\nfigured below, and is neither of those mentioned, it is probably one the\nname of which begins with _ch_.\n\nThe symbol of the month _Zo[c]_ (_Tsoz_ or _Zotz_) also contains this\nsupposed _akbal_ glyph, but in the varied form last above mentioned,\nwhich, as we have said, bears a strong resemblance to the _chuen_\nsymbol. This, as will be seen by comparing, bears a very close\nresemblance to glyph LXIV, 54. If phonetic, we must assume that the _ch_\n(if the interpretation of the former be correct) has been hardened to\n_z_ or _tz_.[225-1]\n\nThe same character is also found in the symbol for the month _Xul_ (see\nplate LXIV, 56, from Dres. 49c). As Dr Seler refuses to accept the\ntheory that the characters are either phonetic or ikonomatic, he\nconcludes, in the following words, that resemblance in the forms of the\nsymbols indicates relationship in the subject-matter:\n\n _Xul_ signifies the end, the point; _xuulul_, to end; _xulah_,\n _xulezah_, to bring to an end; _xulub_ (that with, which anything\n ends), horns, or he who has horns, the devil; _xulbil_, jests,\n tricks, deviltry. We see, therefore, that this word contains\n doubtless a reference to something unholy, uncanny, demoniac. To\n the Central Americans the bat was not merely a nocturnal animal.\n The Popol-Vuh speaks of a Zo'tzi-ha, \"bat house,\" one of the five\n regions of the underworld. There dwells the Cama-zo'tz, \"the\n death-bat,\" the great beast that brings death to all who approach\n it, and also bites off the head of Hunapu.\n\nInstead of having to surmise this fancied relation, I think the\nexplanation is to be found in the fact that similarity in the form of\nthe glyph is indicative of a similarity in the sounds of the words\nrepresented. Here the _ch_ becomes _x_ (sh).\n\nDr Seler also calls attention in this connection to the animal figures\nin Dres. 36a and elsewhere, which are \"represented as plunging down\nfrom heaven with torches in their paws, and fire also issuing from the\ntassel-like ends of their tails, which doubtless denote the lightning,\nthe death-dealing servant of the Chac.\" By the mention of this last\nword--_chac_--Dr Seler has shown that correct reasoning by a different\nline leads to precisely the same result as that which appeals to the\nphonetic or ikonomatic character of the symbol. Here again the _ch_\nsound appears as the chief element of the character. The rain or field\ndeities, the chacs, are usually represented in the codices as dog or\npanther like animals; and _chuac_, \"the tempest,\" and, according to\nHenderson, _chac_ also, signifies lightning. But the relation of figures\nand phonetic value includes also the animal; _chacbolay_, \"a savage\ntiger, a young lion\" (Perez); _chacboay_, \"a leopard\" (Henderson);\n_chacoh_, \"a leopard;\" _chacekel_, \"a tiger, jaguar;\" _chac-ikal_, \"the\nstorm, the tempest.\" The similar figures in Tro. 32c probably symbolize\nthe dry burning season which parches and withers the corn. The word is\nprobably _choco_, _chocou_, or some related form.\n\n\nTHE FOURTH DAY\n\nMaya, _kan_ or _kanan_; Tzental, _ghanan_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _k'at_\n(_k'ate_, _k'atic_, _gatu_); Zapotec, _guache_ or _gueche_; Nahuatl,\n_cuetzpallin_.\n\nThe Maya symbol of this day is subject to but few and slight variations.\nThe principal forms are shown in plates LXIV, 57, to LXV, 3. That given\nby Landa is presented in plate LXIV, 57. The forms in the codices are\nshown in plates LXIV, 58; LXV, 1, 2, 3, that with the eye (LXV, 3) being\nthe usual form given in Peresianus; LXV, 4 represents it as found on the\nright slab of the Palenque tablet.\n\nThe significations of the Maya word _kan_ are various, as \"yellow,\"\n\"rope,\" \"hamac,\" etc, and, according to Dr Brinton, the Tzental _ghanan_\nis the same word under a slightly different form. However, he contends\nthat the original sense is to be found in the Cakchiquel word _k'an_, as\ngiven by Guzman (in a manuscript work in his possession), who says it is\nthe name applied to the female iguana, or tree lizard. This, it is true,\nbrings the signification into close correspondence with that of the\nNahuatl term, but it is more than probable that the Maya and Tzental\nterms were in use before the application mentioned by Guzman was made by\nthe Cakchiquel. It is noticeable, however, that in the list from\nTaylor's \"Te-Ika-a-Maui,\" presented in the appendix, \"lizards\" are given\nas symbolic of one of the New Zealand days.\n\n[Illustration: PL. LXV COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES]\n\nThis interpretation, however, savors too much of an effort to bring the\nsignification into harmony with the Mexican name. Moreover, it is\ndifficult to explain the use of the Maya symbol on this theory, as it is\nundoubtedly frequently employed to denote the grain of maize. For\nexample, it represents the seed from which a corn plant is springing, as\non Tro. 29b (see plate LXIV, 32); and one figure in the same division\nrepresents a bird plucking it up, while another shows some small\nquadruped seizing it. It is also frequently represented in all the\ncodices as on a platter or vessel placed as an offering to some\ndeity, and is often given a yellowish tint in these places. That the\nplant which arises from the symbol in these instances is the maize stalk\nis admitted by Drs Schellhas and Seler, although they do not seem to\nrecognize the fact that the symbol represents the grain of maize which\ngives birth to the stalk. However, Dr Seler, in his subsequent paper\nabove referred to, concludes that it refers to the seed, dropping his\nformer interpretation. Both seem to recognize the whole glyph as a\nsymbol of the stalk. Concerning this, Dr Seler says:\n\n Indeed, we see in Cod. Mendoza the maize shoot employed to express\n the word _acatl_, \"reed.\" I believe that the character _kan_\n repeats the Mexican idea, the maize stalk. This explains for us the\n reason why the character _kan_, as above pointed out, always\n appears among the sacrifices.\n\nI fail to understand why this authority applies the symbol to the\n\"stalk,\" when it is the fruit, the ear, the grain, which furnishes food,\nand may therefore be very properly used as the symbol of food.\n\nIn plate LXV, 5, is presented a copy of one of these corn offerings as\nfound on Tro. 9*b. As the vessel containing the offering appears to be a\nvase, pot, or olla, it seems improbable that the offering it contains\nshould consist of maize stalks. It is true, however, that instances\noccur, as on plates 21-23, Troano, where the stalk rises from the _kan_\nsymbols contained in a vessel, but these are evidently given in a\nfigurative sense, as the vessel rests on a serpent. But even here there\nis evidence that the symbol denotes the grain or ear, and not the stalk,\nas in the lower right-hand corner of plate 21 a human figure is\nrepresented as feeding a bird with the symbol, which can not be\nconstrued in this instance as representing the stalk.[227-1]\n\nXimenes, who gives the Cakchiquel name as _cat_, says it refers to a net\nused for carrying maize, but means \"lizard.\" Dr Seler, referring to this\nstatement, says he strongly suspects that \"the Mexican equivalent of\nthis character has furnished him with this interpretation.\" He adds\nfurther that, in his opinion, \"it has no connection with the Maya root\n_kan_, _kaan_, 'rope,' 'cord,' 'mat-cord,' and _kan_--Quiche-Cakchiquel,\n_k'an_ (_gan_)--'yellow.'\" He believes the Maya term is derived from\n_kaanan_, _kanan_, which signifies \"to be superfluous,\" \"overflow,\" \"to\nabound.\"\n\nDr Brinton thinks that the Zapotec _guache_, translated by Seler \"frog\nor toad,\" is more likely a variant of _gurache_ or _gorache_, \"iguana.\"\n\nIt is apparent from these widely different opinions that the\nsignification of none of the names, save that of the Mexican\ncalendar--_cuetzpallin_, \"lizard\"--has been satisfactorily determined.\n\nIn attempting to ascertain the signification of the names of the day,\nexclusive of the Mexican calendar, it is best to exclude from\nconsideration at first the signification of the latter, and allow it to\nhave no influence in arriving at a conclusion. The attempt by Dr Brinton\nto force agreement with the latter appears to be unsatisfactory.\n\nI am inclined to agree with Dr Seler that the Maya symbol for the day\n_kan_ and the Mexican symbol for _tecpatl_, \"flint,\" are based on the\nsame fundamental concept, if the flint-like symbols on plate 12 of the\nBorgian Codex, one of which is shown in plate LXV, 6, are _tecpatl_\nfigures; of this, however, there is considerable doubt. Seler's opinion\nis based on those of this type. There can be no doubt that here this\nspindle-shape figure represents the shooting plant, the central stock or\nstem, or, what is far more likely, the seed which gives birth to the\nplant. Although they occupy the position of the stock or stem, yet from\nthe form, the fact that some of them have the eye, and that from them\nthe roots stretch downward, I am inclined to believe they are intended\nto denote the seed. The _kan_ symbol, as above stated, is also\nrepresented in the codices as that which gives birth to the plant, as\nthat from which the sprouting plant springs. It is probable, therefore,\nthat it was originally taken from the grain of maize, which it fairly\nrepresents.\n\nNow it is well known that \"yellow\" is one of the primary meanings of\n_kan_, and that the word is closely associated with fruit, the \"yellow\"\nreferring in a large degree to the ripening fruit, especially of the\nmaize plant. According to Henderson one signification of _kan_ is \"ripe,\nas fruit, timber,\" and, according to Perez, _kankanil_ is \"sazon en\n[que] las frutas, aunque no esten maduras por estar las mas tomando el\ncolor amarillo.\" In Cakchiquel _kan_ (_gan_) signifies \"yellow, ripe,\nrich.\" According to Otto Stoll, _vuich_ (or _vuach_), which is almost\nidentical with the Zapotec name of the day, is the word for \"fruit\" in\nseveral of the Maya dialects. According to the vocabulary of Cordova, as\ngiven by Ternaux-Compans, \"yellow\" in Zapotec is _nagache_, and in\nFuller's MS. Vocabulary it is _na-gutchi_, the _na_ being a prefix\nsignifying \"thing.\" The anonymous author, however, writes it _brechii_.\nWe also notice that \"gold\" in this language is _yache_, probably\nreferring to the color. It is likely, therefore, that the Zapotec name\nof this day signifies \"yellow, ripe, mature,\" referring to fruits,\nespecially maize.\n\nWhen maize was introduced into New Zealand it was named _kanga_,\nprobably after the Malay _tangkai_, the name for an \"ear of corn.\" The\nMeztitlan name of the day is _Xilotl_, \"an ear of corn,\" or \"a young\nmaize shoot.\" These facts seem to show that the symbol has some\nreference to maize, and tend to confirm the view expressed above, that\nthe compound symbol shown in plate LXIV, 9, denotes \"maize bread.\" The\npresence of the _kan_ character in the symbol of the month _Cumhu_ or\n_Cumku_ or _Humku_ (plate LXV, 7) is difficult to explain on the theory\nthat it retains here the signification given it as the symbol of the day\n_Kan_, whether considered ideographic or phonetic, unless we suppose\nthe name is incomplete and should have _kan_ added to it. I am somewhat\ndisposed to believe that it is sometimes used alone to denote bread, and\nis then to be interpreted by _uah_. Take, for example, the figure in\nTro. 30d. Here we see a dog seated on a _kan_ symbol, with the same\nsymbol taking the place of the eye. As _pek_ is dog in Maya and _pecuah_\nthe tortilla or bread of maize, and the compound glyph in plate LXIV, 9,\nis in the text, this may be an instance of the true rebus method of\nrepresenting a word. Another instance of a similar character will be\ngiven under the day _Caban_. Possibly the _kan_ glyph in the month\nsymbol may have there the signification _uah_.\n\nThe fact must be borne in mind that this character, as before stated, is\noften, and perhaps most frequently, used, except where it indicates the\nday, merely as the symbol of corn or maize. As an example, take the\ncompound character shown in plate LXV, 8, from Tro. 33c. In the picture\nunder the text is the Corn god represented with the dead eye and bound\nwith cords; above his head is a dog-like animal bearing burning torches.\nThis representation, taken in connection with what is seen in the other\ndivisions of the plate, appears, as heretofore stated, to denote the\nburning drought of summer, which is destroying the maize crop. As the\nright portion of the compound character is the _cimi_ symbol, probably\nrepresenting death, the whole character very likely indicates the dying\ncorn. I have not found any combination where the rendering of the symbol\nby _kan_ proves satisfactory. In fact, with the exception of the\n_kan-imix_ combination heretofore mentioned, _kan_ is very seldom\ncombined with other glyphs, there being only some two or three in the\nTro. Cod., and three or four in the Cortesian Codex. It appears,\nhowever, a number of times in combination in the Dresden Codex, but as\nyet I am unable to interpret any of them satisfactorily.\n\n\nTHE FIFTH DAY\n\nMaya, _chicchan_; Tzental, _abagh_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _can_; Zapotec,\n_ci_, _ziie_ or _guii_; Nahuatl, _cohuatl_.\n\nThe forms in which the symbol of this day appears are various and\nsometimes widely divergent. The principal ones are shown in plates LXV,\n9 to 20. The form given by Landa is seen at 9; that most common in the\nCodex Tro. at 10. Other forms which frequently occur are shown at 11-13;\nthose shown at 14-16 are from the Troano Codex. Some unusual forms which\nvary widely from the typical glyph are given at 17-20.\n\nThe change of a symbol to the face form, as seen in this instance at\nLXV, 15-16, does not appear to have any significance. The chief element\nof this character is the circular spot in the right portion, usually\nbordered by a double line and little square blocks, with the interior\ngenerally crosshatched. As the crosshatching is also found in the symbol\nfor the month _Pax_ (plate LXV, 22), it is probable, if phonetic, that\nthis characteristic denotes the _x_ (sh) or _ch_ sound. As a similar\nmarking is frequently present on the serpent figures in the codices\n(plate LXV, 23), it is possible that its signification is _chan_,\n\"serpent,\" or it may refer to some real or mythological characteristic.\n\nThe signification of the names of this day, except that of the Nahuatl\ncalendar--_cohuatl_, \"serpent\"--appears to be uncertain. Perez says the\nword _chicchan_ can be explained only by considering it to be\nincorrectly written for _chichan_, \"little.\" Henderson in his lexicon\nwrites it _chichan_, and gives as the meaning of the word, \"new, young,\nas _chichan u_, the new moon.\" Dr Seler first suggested that the first\npart of the name might be derived from the root _chi_, _chii_, \"mouth,\nto bite,\" and hence that the signification might be \"the biting\nserpent.\" However, he subsequently concluded that the proper\ninterpretation is \"a sign marked or taken,\" from _chich_, \"a sign or\nmark,\" and _ch'aan_, \"something taken or carried away.\" Dr Brinton\nthinks there is much less difficulty in construing it as _chich_, strong\nor great, and _chan_, the generic Tzental term for serpent. The generic\nterm for serpent in the Zoztzil is _cham_.\n\nDr Seler does not attempt an explanation of the Tzental term, but Dr\nBrinton says that it means in that dialect and in Cakchiquel, \"luck,\nfate, fortune.\" This, he says, is identical with the Zapotec _ci_,\n_zii_, and _guii_, and, as he finds evidence that the serpent is\nmentioned as an animal whence portents were derived by the Zapotecs,\nthinks this furnishes the connecting link with the signification in\nother calendars. This explanation is so circuitous, and in fact\nstrained, as to render it unsatisfactory.\n\nA study of the symbol with reference to its origin may perhaps furnish\nsome aid in arriving at the true signification of the name. As will be\nseen by reference to the various forms of the symbol, the bordering of\nthe circular inclosed space appears to be more permanent than the inner\nmarkings. This is apparent from the fact that the little squares or\nblocks are retained in all the types except the anomalous forms shown in\nplate LXV, 16-18, and even in one of these (LXV, 18) they appear. On the\nother hand, the markings in the inclosed space are varied, and in some\ninstances, as LXV, 11, are omitted altogether. It would seem, therefore,\nfrom this that the bordering was considered the essential element of the\nglyph. From what, then, is the symbol taken? If we turn to Dresden 25c,\nwe see in the priest's robe, in all probability, that from which the\nsymbol was derived. Here we have the inner crosshatching and the little\ndark blocks or squares around the border. The same pattern is seen also\non Tro. 16*b and c, and on the female dresses, same codex, 20*c and d.\nOn the latter, in some cases, is the waved line seen in the unusual\nforms of the day symbol shown in plate LXV, 17, 18, and 19. Other\nexamples could be referred to, but attention is called only to one more,\nviz, the curtain-like articles exhibited on Tro. 29*b, where we see not\nonly the inner crosshatching and bordering blocks, but on the side\nborders the precise marking of the day symbol shown in plate LXV, 17.\n\nAs _chi_, _chii_, signifies not only mouth, but also \"limit, border,\nmargin, shore,\" and especially the \"skirt or loose edge of a garment,\"\nthe relation of the symbol to the name of the day is obvious. It is used\nhere for its phonetic value--_chi_. As _chii_ signifies \"to bite, prick,\nto sting as a serpent,\" and _chan_ denotes \"serpent,\" the true\nexplanation of the name of the day would seem to be \"the biting or\nstinging serpent.\" This will perhaps justify us in supposing that where\nthe symbol is found on a serpent it must have reference to this\ncharacteristic.\n\nI had not observed when the above was written that Brasseur had\nexpressed substantially the same view in regard to the origin of this\nsymbol.\n\n\nTHE SIXTH DAY\n\nMaya, _cimi_; Tzental, _tox_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _camey_; Zapotec,\n_lana_; Nahuatl, _miquiztli_.\n\nLanda's symbol for this day is shown in plate LXV, 24. The usual form in\nthe Codex Tro. and Cortesian Codex is given in LXV, 25; it is varied\nfrequently by an extension of the line from the mouth, somewhat as in\nsymbol 28 of the same plate, which is the usual form in the Dresden\nCodex. A variation of this is seen at 29, which seems to have given rise\nto the unusual form shown in 31. A radical variation is that given at\n27. The symbol of the Death god, 26 and 30, is sometimes, though rarely,\nsubstituted as the symbol of this day. The closed or dead eye and\nprominent teeth, as seen in the usual forms, show very clearly that the\nsymbol is simply a conventional representation of the naked skull. The\nform shown at 27, however, is more difficult to account for; reference\nto it will be made farther on.\n\nThe Maya, Quiche Cakchiquel,[TN-2] and Nahuatl terms signify \"death.\" The\nTzental name _tox_, however, presents a difficulty not readily overcome\nin order to bring its signification into harmony with that of the\nothers. Dr Seler does not attempt an explanation in his paper on the\nmeaning of the day names, and in his subsequent article fails to reach\nany settled conclusion. Dr Brinton thinks it means something (as a human\nhead) separated, sundered, cut off; \"hence _tox-oghbil_, the ax or\nhatchet; _q-tox_, to split, divide, cut off.\" In this, he holds, it\nagrees precisely with the Zapotec _lana_, which, he says, the Zapotec\nvocabulary renders \"a separated thing, like a single syllable, word, or\nletter.\" Dr Seler's interpretation of the Zapotec name is wholly\ndifferent, as he says that the most natural of the various\nsignifications given is, in his opinion, \"hare;\" _pela-pillaana_,\n\"liebre animal;\" _too-quixe-pillaana_, or _pella-pillaana_, \"red para\nliebres.\" I observe, however, that in Fuller's vocabulary _gu-lana_ is\n\"to steal.\" Other significations are \"name,\" \"flesh,\" \"secretly,\" etc.\nThe proper interpretation of the Zapotec name therefore appears to be\nvery doubtful. In Cordova's vocabulary, as given by Ternaux-Compans,\n\"fleche\" is given as the meaning of _quii-lana_. In Tzotzil _gtox_\nsignifies \"to split, break off, break open, to chop.\" In Maya we have\n_tok_; which, as a substantive, Perez explains by \"pedernal, la\nsangria;\" as a verb it signifies \"to bleed, let blood.\" In this dialect\n_tox_ denotes \"to drain, draw off liquor, spill, shed.\"\n\nThe usual form of the Mexican symbol for this day is shown in plate LXV,\n32. It is also a naked skull.\n\nLike Dr Seler, I am compelled to admit that I can give no satisfactory\nsuggestion as to the origin of the form shown in plate LXV, 27.\nAccording to Colonel Mallery,[232-1] one sign among the Indians for\nknife is to \"cut past the mouth with the raised right hand,\" which, if\nfigured, would probably bear some resemblance to the marks on this\nsymbol.[232-2]\n\n\nTHE SEVENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _manik_; Tzental, _moxic_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _queh_; Zapotec,\n_china_; Nahuatl, _mazatl_.\n\nThe symbol for this day, shown in plate LXVIII, 31, is without any\nchange worthy of notice, the only difference observable being a greater\nor less degree of perfection with which it has been drawn by the\naboriginal artist. It is found, however, in various combinations where\nit is subject to variation in form, if these in truth be intended for\nthis symbol. As Brasseur de Bourbourg has suggested, this appears to\nhave been taken from the partially closed hand, where the points of the\nfingers are brought round close to the tip of the thumb. Whether\nintended to show the palm or back outward is uncertain, though\napparently the latter. The nearest approach I find among the Indian\nsigns figured by Colonel Mallery is that denoting \"little, diminutive,\nsmall.\" But the position of the hand in the symbol appears to indicate\nthe act of grasping; either signification gives _ch_ as the chief\nphonetic element of the Maya word _chan_ and _chichan_, signifying\n\"little,\" and _chuc_, _chucah_, \"to grasp, to seize\" (\"alcanzar, asir,\nprender,\" Perez); or _chuuc_, \"to take, grasp, catch, seize,\"\nHenderson.[232-3] It would seem from this that if the symbol is phonetic\nin any sense, the chief element of the word indicated is _ch_. The\nsupposition by Drs Schellhas and Seler that this symbol sometimes\ncontains the elements of the sign of the four winds or wind cross,\nappears to be without any real foundation. The partial cross-shape\nfigure in it is merely the conventional method of drawing the opening\nbetween the fingers, and would be just as correctly given as an oval as\nan inverted _tau_.\n\nAs this interpretation of the symbol is quite different from that given\nby other writers, some evidence to justify it is presented here.\n\nAttention is called first to the symbol for \"west,\" shown in plate LXIV,\n53. The lower portion is the recognized symbol for _kin_, \"day\" or\n\"sun,\" and the upper portion is beyond question the _manik_ character.\nAs _chikin_ is the Maya name for \"west,\" we are justified in assuming\nthat here at least this _manik_ symbol is to be interpreted by _chi_,\nand is in some sense phonetic. As _china_ is the Zapotec name of the\nday, and signifies \"deer,\" and _chigh_ is the Zotzil name for \"deer,\" it\nis probable that the symbol preserves the old name, while in Maya this\nold name has been supplanted for some reason, or through some linguistic\nprocess, by _manik_.\n\nDr Seler calls attention to the character shown in plate LXVIII, 32,\nfrom Dres. 13c, which is repeated in the form LXVIII, 33, on plate 21b.\nThat this refers to the deer figured below must be admitted, as this is\nclearly shown by the relation of the characters in the adjoining section\nto the animals figured below the text. Henderson (MS. Lexicon) gives\n_xolke_ as \"the male deer.\" If this could be considered substantially\nequivalent to _cholceh_ in sound, our _manik_ symbol would retain its\nvalue. The objection to this supposition is that the figure is probably\nintended for a doe instead of the male. Brasseur gives _chacyuc_ as the\nname applied to a small species of deer. It is true these\ninterpretations leave out the numeral prefix; nevertheless they serve to\nshow that it is probable the true name is a word which retains the\nphonetic value of the _manik_ symbol as we have given it. Be the word\nwhat it may, two conclusions maybe relied on: First, that it alludes to\nthe deer, and, second, that one of its chief phonetic elements is _ch_.\nThe character shown in plate LXVIII, 34, from Tro. 11*b, has probably\nthe same element in its phonetic equivalent, for the Maya verb _hax_\n(_haxnahi_), \"to twist or turn by rolling the thing between the palms of\nthe hand; make cord used for muslin or cloth,\" etc, gives substantially\nthis phonetic equivalent.\n\nThe character shown, in plate LXVIII, 35, from Dres. 10b, is referred to\nby Seler as indicating an offering to the gods. In this he is possibly\ncorrect. As _tich_, in Maya, signifies an \"offering,\" \"a sacrifice,\" and\n_tich_ (_tichah_) \"to offer, present,\" etc, it is probable that in this\ninstance also the _manik_ symbol retains _ch_, as its chief phonetic\nelement. However, I am inclined to believe it refers to the collecting\nor gathering of the ripened fruit. In this case the prefix must be\nunderstood as a determinative indicating piling or heaping up, putting\ntogether or in a heap, or storing away. Of the Maya words indicating\nthis operation, we note the following: _C[=h]ic[=h]_ (_c[=h]ic[=h]ah_),\n_hich_, and _hoch_, each of which has _ch_ or _c[=h]_ as its chief\nconsonant element. This interpretation agrees very well with the fact\nthat here, as elsewhere, a date is to be taken into consideration. On\nsuch a date, at such a time, the cacao is to be gathered, is to be\nharvested and stored away. Students of these codices, in their attempts\nat interpretation, appear, as a general thing, to overlook the fact that\nalmost every paragraph or group of glyphs in the script is accompanied\nby a date which must be taken into consideration in the interpretation.\nThe symbol which follows immediately to the right, shown in plate\nLXVIII, 36, may be rendered _cacau_, the \"cacao,\" as the duplicated\ncomb-like character is Landa's _ca_.\n\nAs the Quiche-Cakchiquel, Zapotec, and Nahuatl names all signify \"deer,\"\nthe difficulty in bringing all into harmony lies in the Maya and Tzental\nnames. Dr Seler's explanation is substantially as follows: That the word\n_manik_ is from the root _man_ or _mal_, which signifies \"to pass\nquickly;\" _manik_ may therefore mean \"that which passes by,\" \"that which\nis fleeting.\" Dr Brinton gives the same explanation, and concludes that\nthe deer is referred to metaphorically. In regard to the Tzental name\n_moxic_, Dr Seler suggests that it may be founded on the root _max_,\nfrom which is derived _maxan_, \"swift.\" Dr Brinton objects to this\nderivation, as _maxan_ with the signification \"swift\" is from _ma_,\n\"not,\" and _xan_, \"slow, tardy,\" and suggests that the name is probably\na corruption of the Nahuatl _mazatl_. However, it may be stated in favor\nof Seler's explanation, that Henderson gives _moxan_, \"quickly, shortly,\nwithout hindrance,\" which is apparently another form of _maxan_. Dr\nSeler, however, concludes, from a study of the relations in which the\ncharacter is found in the codices, that it is the symbol of offering, of\nsacrifice, the deer being esteemed the animal most appropriate for this\npurpose. Henderson says _manik_ signifies \"calm,\" evidently considering\nit to be formed of _ma_, negative, and _ik_, \"wind.\"\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that the authorities are at sea in regard to\nthe signification of the Maya and Tzental names. If the symbol is used,\nas Seler claims, to indicate offerings or sacrifices, this may be\nreadily explained on the supposition that it is used ikonomatically\nbecause of the phonetic value I have assigned it; but otherwise it is\ndifficult, if not impossible, to see any relation between the symbol and\nthe name given it. So far I have found it used in no place, in\ncombination, where the value _manik_ will give a satisfactory\ninterpretation.\n\nThe following additional renderings are added here as tending to confirm\nthe phonetic value assigned the _manik_ character.\n\nThe character shown in plate LXVIII, 37, is from Tro. 20*c, where it is\nrepeated four times. The figures below the text show women in the act of\nsprinkling or pouring water on children. Whether this be considered a\nreligious ceremony or not, it is probably intended to denote purifying\nor cleansing, and not baptism in the modern acceptation of the term. As\n_choah_, according to Perez, signifies \"to cleanse, purify, scour,\" and\n_choich_ \"to clean, scour, or wash the face,\" we have therein a quite\nappropriate interpretation of the symbol. The presence of the\ncardinal-point symbols renders it probable that the scene refers to a\nreligious ceremony of some kind. The strict regard paid to the position\nrelative to the cardinal points by savage and semicivilized people is\ntoo well known to require any proof here.\n\nOn Tro. 34*c two individuals are engaged in some work which we might\nsuppose to be weaving but for the fact that there is no cord or thread\nto be seen. Over each is the character shown in plate LXVIII, 38. This\nis evidently an incomplete _manik_ symbol. As the supposed aspirate sign\nis present, it is probable that _hooch_, \"to pare off, to scrape,\" or\n_hoochci_, \"to pare off, or scrape the hennequin,\" will furnish an\nappropriate rendering.\n\n\nTHE EIGHTH DAY.\n\nMaya, _lamat_; Tzental, _lambat_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _canel_ or _kanel_;\nZapotec, _lapa_ or _laba_; Nahuatl, _tochtli_.\n\nThe various forms of the symbol of this day are shown in plates LXV, 33\nto 37, and LXVIII, 39-40. That given by Landa is seen in LXV, 33; it is\nalso found very frequently in the codices as LXV, 34. The three other\nforms found in the codices are shown in LXV, 35, 36, 37. The form on the\nPalenque Tablet is given in LXVIII, 40; that of the Tikal inscription is\nsimilar to Landa's figure, if we are correct in our determination, of\nwhich there is some doubt, as the dots are effaced.\n\nA comparison of plate LXV, 36, with the symbol of the day _Ahau_, shown\nin LXVIII, 5, leads at once to the impression that the former was\nderived from the latter, and that, if in any sense phonetic, the\nequivalents of the two are closely related. As will be shown hereafter,\nthe _Ahau_ symbol has _l_ as its chief phonetic element, if it be\nconsidered in any sense phonetic. We should therefore expect to find, in\nthe verbal equivalent of this _Lamat_ symbol, _l_ as a prominent\nelement. In the form shown at LXV, 33, it would seem that we see an\neffort to intimate by the character itself the presence of the _b_\nelement. That the symbol shown in plate LXV, 38, has _b_ as its chief\nelement is shown elsewhere. It is possible, therefore, that this _Lamat_\nsymbol had no original signification purely its own, but that it is a\ncomposite derived from the _Ahau_, and what I have termed the _b_\nsymbol. Without anticipating the proof that the _Ahau_ symbol has _l_ as\nits chief phonetic element, I call attention to the fact that it is the\nupper character in the symbol for _likin_, \"east\" (plate LXVIII, 12). As\nthe lower character is the well-known symbol for _kin_, \"day\" or \"sun,\"\nwe must assume that the value of our _Ahau_, in this case at least, is\n_li_. As another suggestion, I would add that it may have been derived\nfrom a figure used in some game. As the figure is usually divided into\napartments or cells, most of which inclose a dot, the Maya word _lem_,\n_lemah_, \"meter, encajar, poner dentro, introducir\" (Perez), would not\ninappropriately express the idea. Its use as a day symbol would then be\nsimply for its phonetic value. This is based, of course, on the\nderivation. I suggest below. Nevertheless it must be admitted that these\nare but mere guesses.\n\nIn his article so frequently referred to Dr Seler has little to say in\nregard to the signification of the names of this day. He remarks that\n\"the word _kanel_ is given by Ximenes--with what authority I know\nnot--with the signification 'rabbit,' thus corresponding to the Mexican\nname for this character (Tochtli).\" He says he is unable to interpret\nthe words _lambat_ and _lamat_. In his subsequent article he interprets\nthe Zapotec word by \"to divide, to break into pieces,\" and remarks \"that\nthe concept of something divided, broken in pieces, lies at the\nfoundation of the delineation of this day character is also proved by\nthe Maya hieroglyph for the same [see plate LXV, 33 and 36], in which\nsomething divided or broken up is undoubtedly indicated.\" He adds that\n\"perhaps also the terms _lambat_ and _lamat_, used in Tzental-Zoztzil\nand in Maya for the day character, and which are hardly explainable from\nthe well-known Maya, are derived from the Zapotec word _lapa_.\" Dr\nBrinton's explanation is as follows:\n\n The Maya _lamat_ is evidently a shortened form of the Tzental\n _lambat_, which is composed of _lam_, to sink into something soft\n (\"hundirse in cosa blanda,\" like light loam), and _bat_, the grain,\n the seed, and the name refers to the planting of the crops. The\n Quiche-Cakchiquel _kanel_ is the name of the Guardian of the Sown\n Seed, probably from _kan_, yellow, referring to the yellow grains\n or maize. The Zapotec _lapa_ or _laba_ means a drop, and a crown or\n garland; here probably the latter, in reference to the products of\n the fields. The rabbit, in Nahuatl, is the symbol of ease and\n intoxication.\n\nThus, while Dr Brinton explains the name by \"sinking in the mud or\nsoil,\" Brasseur explains it by \"sinking in the water.\"\n\nIt is much more likely that the Maya name is but a modification of\n_lemba_, which, as a verb, according to Henderson, signifies \"to flash,\nto shine, etc;\" and as a noun, according to Perez, \"resplendor, brillo,\nrelampago.\" I have no Tzental vocabulary at hand, but observe that in\nthe closely allied Zoztzil, \"relampagear\" is given as the equivalent of\n_lemlaghet_.\n\nIt is a coincidence worthy of a passing notice that in Hawaiian _lama_\nand _pu-lama_ signify \"a torch;\" _au-lama_, \"to give light;\" _malama_,\n\"light from the sun or moon;\" in Samoan, _lama_, \"the candle-nut tree,\nand a torch made of the nuts;\" in Tonga, _mama_, \"light, a flambeau;\"\nNew Zealand, _rama_, \"candle, light;\" Tahaitan, _rama_, \"a torch.\"\n\nIt is somewhat singular that Dr Brinton, after his interpretation of the\nMaya name of the fourth day heretofore given, should in this instance\nderive _kanel_--the Quiche-Cakchiquel name of this day--from lean,\n\"yellow,\" referring to the yellow grains of maize. However, it is quite\nprobable that the reference to the color in this explanation is correct.\n\nThe traditions of the Indians in which the rabbit is brought into\nrelation with the sun are well known. Dr Brinton has shown in his work\non \"American Hero Myths\" that the Rabbit or Great Hare in the Algonquian\nmyths symbolized \"light.\" He remarks in \"The Lenape and their Legends\"\nthat--\n\n The familiar Algonkin myth of the \"Great Hare,\" which I have\n elsewhere shown to be distinctively a myth of Light, was also well\n known to the Delawares, and they applied to this animal, also, the\n appellation of the \"Grandfather of the Indians.\" Like the fire, the\n hare was considered their ancestor, and in both instances the Light\n was meant, fire being its symbol, and the word for hare being\n identical with that of brightness and light.[236-1]\n\nIt is possible that the Mexicans selected the rabbit for this day as a\nknown symbol of light, thus bringing it into correspondence with the\nsignification of the day names of the other calendars. The method by\nwhich Drs Seler and Brinton try to bring the Maya and Zapotec names into\nharmony with the Mexican appears to me to be in the wrong direction.\n\nIt is therefore quite probable, from what has been shown, that the Maya,\nTzental, and Quiche-Cakchiquel names refer to light, flame, or the\nlightning flash, and that the rabbit was selected because of some\nmythological relation it was supposed to bear to the sun, or\nlight.[237-1] As this character is seldom found in combination, or used\notherwise than as a day symbol, it is probable that the signification is\nrepresented by some other symbol, or is not referred to in the text.\n\n\nTHE NINTH DAY\n\nMaya, _muluc_; Tzental, _molo_ or _mulu_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _toh_;\nZapotec, _niza_ or _queza_; Nahuatl, _atl_.\n\nThere are but few and slight variations in the form of the symbol of\nthis day. That given by Landa is shown in plate LXV, 39. The usual forms\nin the codices are seen at 40-42 of the same plate. Symbol 43, which is\nan important variation, is from the Cortesian Codex.\n\nThe addition of the little circle and loop in example LXV, 43, from the\nCortesian Codex, is important, as it possibly indicates that the simple\nforms given in plate LXV, 40-42, are incomplete, and may be a slight\nindication of phoneticism. If the latter supposition be correct, it is\nprobable that in this additional feature we find the element _'c_ of the\nword. It is one of the characteristics of the _manik_ symbol, which, as\nheretofore shown, has, in some instances at least, _ch_ as one of its\nphonetic elements, whether considered truly phonetic or not.\n\nThis clue, if followed up, appears to furnish an explanation of some\nother characters in which the little circle and loops are found. For\nexample, the character shown in plate LXV, 44 (Dres. 2 (45)b and c),\napparently refers to the act of sewing or stitching indicated by the\npictures below the text. As the circle and loops form an important part\nof the character, it is probable that _c_ or _ch_ is the chief or\nprominent element of the word. It is possible therefore, that _chuyah_,\n\"to sew,\" or some derivative thereof, would be a proper rendering. The\nglyph shown in plate LXV, 45, from. Tro. 11*c is a duplication of LXV,\n44. As the appendix, as shown elsewhere, probably has _ah_, _ha_, or\n_hal_ as its phonetic equivalent, we have, as the elements of the word\nrepresented by the whole glyph (omitting the prefix), _ch'-ch'ah_. As\n_choch_ (_chochah_), Perez, and _chooch_ (_choochah_), Henderson,\nsignify \"to loosen, untie, disunite, detach,\" this may be the true\ninterpretation of the symbol. The presence of the eye in a symbol\nappears, as a rule, to have no special significance, as is shown by its\npresence sometimes in the symbols for the days _chicchan_ and _oc_. It\nis worthy of note that Dr Seler introduces into his manik series the\ncharacter above shown as having some relation to and being possibly a\nvariation of that symbol. Before attempting to trace the symbol of the\nday in its combinations with other characters, with a view of\nascertaining its original signification, reference will be made to the\nsignification of the day names in the different calendars.\n\nThe signification of the Nahuatl word _atl_ is water; the Zapotec names\nare also words for water. _Tohil_ was the name of the principal Quiche\ndeity, and appears to have been the god of thunder and rain, and, as\nSeler presumes, was the representative in these nations of the Maya Chac\nand Mexican Tlaloc. According to Brasseur, _toh_ signifies \"a heavy or\nsudden shower\" or \"thunder shower.\" Drs Seler and Brinton both derive\nthe Maya and Tzental names from the radical _mul_ or _mol_, \"to join\ntogether, collect, heap up,\" and suppose it refers to the gathering\ntogether of the waters (that is, the clouds) in the heavens. This brings\nthe signification of these two names into harmony with that of the names\nof the other calendars, and is probably a correct interpretation.\n\nThere are but few places where the symbol of this day is found in\nconnection with other characters that I have been able to interpret\nentirely satisfactorily.\n\nThe compound character shown in plate LXV, 46, is from Dres. 16c.\nJudging by the evident parallelism of the groups in this division, this\ncharacter is the symbol of the bird figured below the text. In this\npicture is easily recognized the head of the parrot. As _moo_ is the\nMaya name of a species of parrot (\"the macaw\"), and the circular\ncharacter of the glyph is like the symbol for _muluc_, except that the\ncircumscribing line is of dots, we may safely accept this term as the\nphonetic value. The fact that the small character is double, as is the\n_o_ in the word, is another indication that the rendering is correct,\nand probably accounts for the circle being of dots. (See above under\n_akbal_.) This interpretation appears to be further supported by the\nform of the symbol for the month _Mol_ as found at Dres. 47c. (See plate\nLXIV, 50.)\n\nThe hint furnished by these characters may enable us to gain a correct\nidea of the signification of the dotted line which surrounds one of the\ncharacters in each group of Dres. 7c, one of which is shown in plate\nLXV, 47. As the inclosing line of dots appears in some cases (but not\nall, for in some instances _o_ or _u_ appears to form the chief phonetic\nelement) to indicate _mo_ or _mu_, it is possible that this glyph may be\nproperly interpreted by _muhul_, \"a gift, dower, present,\" or \"to\npresent a gift or dower, to offer a present.\" Hence the whole character\nshown in plate LXV, 47, may be interpreted \"to make a gift of\ncacao.\"[238-1]\n\nThe usual form of the Mexican symbol of this day is shown in plate LXV,\n48, the leaf-like portion being blue in the original to indicate water.\nIn regard to the origin of the character, Seler remarks: \"If the Maya\ncharacter agrees with the Mexican (_atl_), we must look upon it as a\nwater vessel.\" Yet after a number of illustrations and references he\ndeclares: \"I by no means affirm that the _vessel_ is expressed by the\nform of this character. The form seems to me to express rather the water\ndrop.\"\n\nIt is more likely that it represents a little circular hillock, seen\nfrom above, or something of that nature surrounded by a ring, as the\nsignifications given the Maya word _mul_ are \"hillock, heap, mound,\nmountain, ants' nest, etc.\" However, if Henderson is correct in giving\nas one of its special meanings \"out of many one,\" its origin may readily\nbe seen. That it was taken from some object which could be designated by\nthe word _mul_ or _mol_ may confidently be assumed. Hence the symbol is\nused for its phonetic value as a day character and not with any\nreference to the object represented. The little circle and loops seen in\nplate LXV, 43, from the Cortesian Codex 30b, are probably, as heretofore\nstated, introduced to give the _c_ sound. Dr Brinton suggests that it\nrepresents one thing in another of the same kind, with a reference to\ncollecting together or heaping up.\n\n\nTHE TENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _oc_; Tzental, _elab_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _tzi_; Zapotec, _tella_;\nNahuatl, _itzcuintli_.\n\nThe symbol of this day as given by Landa is shown in plate LXV, 49. This\nis substantially the usual form found in the codices as given in LXV,\n50, 51, 55, the first two being usual in the Troano, Cortesian, and\nPeresian codices, and 55 in the Dresden. In a few instances, as Tro. 12a\nand 12c, it assumes the face form 52. The face form shown at 54 occurs\nin the Dresden Codex, as do the variations seen at 53 and 56.\n\nDr Seler and Brasseur contend that the forms shown in plate LXV, 52 and\n54, make it evident that the broken line, which is the chief\ncharacteristic of the glyph, is intended to represent, or rather is\nderived from, the ear of the dog. This, Seler says, is frequently\nrepresented in the Mexican codices, and also many times in the Maya\nmanuscripts, with the tip of the ear torn away. To illustrate this, he\npresents several figures of dog's heads, one of which is shown in our\nplate LXV, 57.[239-1]\n\nThere would seem to be some foundation for this supposition, yet there\nare difficulties in the way of its acceptance which appear\nunsurmountable. The first of these is that it furnishes no explanation\nor clue to the relation between the symbol and the Maya or Tzental name.\nSecond, it does not appear to have been used in any instance as the\nsymbol of the dog, which seems to be a fatal objection, if it is assumed\nto be merely ideographic. Third, it renders only more difficult any\nexplanation of the character shown in plate LXV, 58, which is of such\nfrequent occurrence in all the codices. If a satisfactory interpretation\nof this glyph could be found, it would assist greatly in deciphering the\ncodices. I am rather inclined to think it is a sign of repetition--as\n\"repeat thrice.\" If there were some word for _ear_ which could be\nconnected with _oc_ or _elab_, then we might suppose the symbol to be\nused phonetically. However, as this can not be found, some other\nexplanation must be sought.\n\nThe Nahuatl and Quiche-Cakchiquel names are the ordinary terms in these\nlanguages for \"dog,\" and the Mexican symbol for the day is the head of a\ndog. Dr Seler does not attempt to explain the Tzental name, and merely\nsuggests that the Maya word _oc_, \"foot, footprint, track,\" and as a\nverb, \"to enter, to go into,\" may have been adopted by the priests as\nexpressing a prominent characteristic of the dog. Dr Brinton is inclined\nto derive the name _oc_ from the verb _ocol_, _oclah_, \"to steal, to\nrob,\" rather than from _ocol_, \"to enter,\" supposing it to have been\nselected as indicative of another characteristic of the dog. This he\nbelieves also to be the signification of the Tzental term _elab_. This\nit seems to me is again reversing the order, unless we assume that the\nQuiche _tzi_ and Mexican _itzcuintli_ are the older terms.[240-1]\n\nDr Brinton says that according to Bartolom\u00e9 de Pisa the Zapotec name\nsignifies \"dog,\" though he does not find it with this meaning in the\nvocabularies. Dr Seler, however, obtains the signification \"dog\" for\nthis name by supposing that it is derived from _tee-lao_, \"mouth\ndownward,\" referring to some myth of a dog representing the lightning,\nor lightning demon, as falling or plunging downward from the sky in\ncertain figures of the codices. This, Dr Brinton says, \"seems strained,\"\nwhich may also be said of the explanations of the Maya name.\n\nThe symbol of the dog as found in the Dresden Codex (13c), and as\nadmitted by Dr Seler, is shown in plate LXV, 59. The same symbol is\nfound in the same codex, 21b. Now, I think it possible to show, with a\nconsiderable degree of certainty, what is the chief phonetic element of\nthis symbol, at least of its first or left-hand character. In plate LXV,\n60, from Tro. 22*a, is seen (omitting the prefix) substantially the\nsymbol that Landa interprets _le_, \"the lasso,\" and also \"to lasso.\" As\nthe lower character is his _e_, we may take for granted that the upper\nportion indicates the _l_ sound; further evidence of this, however, will\nbe presented under the twentieth day. As this is followed by the symbol\nseen in plate LXV, 61, which refers to the \"turkey\" (kutz or\ncuitz),[240-2] and the figure below the text shows a snared turkey, the\ninterpretation appears to be appropriate. Turning now to Dres. 44 (l)c,\nwe notice in the picture below the text the compound glyph shown in\nplate LXV, 62. Immediately below it is the figure of a fish, which the\ntwo individuals represented are trying to catch in a seine. As this\ncontains the same elements as 61 (plate LXV), reversed, the phonetic\nvalue should be _tz'c_. Referring to Perez' Lexicon, we find that _tzac_\nis a fish \"so named;\" Brasseur says, \"a little fish resembling a sardine\nwhich inhabits the senotes.\"\n\nNow these give _tz'_ as the chief phonetic element of the left character\nof the dog symbol (LXV, 59), which is also the consonant element of the\nname for \"dog\" (_tzi_) in the Tzental, Cakchiquel, and most of the Maya\ndialects, though not of the Maya proper. This furnishes a consistent and\nappropriate rendering of the left portion of the symbol. Although the\nsymbol for the mouth _Kankin_ (LXV, 63) presents a difficulty, it is\npossible some other name was applied to this month of which _tz_ was a\nleading element; Yaxkin is sometimes written with the prefix _Dze_.\n\nAs _och_ is the Maya name for the \"male fox,\" and _oquil_ or _ocquil_ is\nthe name in Tzental and Tzotzil for \"wolf,\" it is possible the Maya name\nmay have been derived from one of these. Moreover, it is worthy of\nnotice that \"foot\" in Tzotzil is written _oquil_ as well as _oc_.\n\nI was at first inclined to adopt Dr Seler's suggestion that the\ndistinguishing feature of the symbol might have been taken from the\ndog's ears as given in the codices. However, a more thorough examination\nleads me to doubt this suggestion. The little black clots or blocks on\nthe bent line appear here, as in the _chicchan_ symbol, to be the most\nprominent and essential elements of the symbol. As they do not appear in\nthe ear figures, it seems impossible that the character should have been\nderived from these figures. It is more likely that they represent the\nknots on a string or cord; and this supposition appears to be sustained\nby the fact that the Maya word _hok_, according to Brasseur, signifies\n\"a knot, hook;\" and _hokal_ \"to be knotted, formed of knots.\" Perez says\n\"_hok_, el lazo formado para anudar;\" \"_hokol_, lazarse para anudarse la\ncuerda.\" If this supposition be correct, the symbol is used for the day\nbecause of its phonetic value, and without any reference to its original\nsignification.\n\n\nTHE ELEVENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _chuen_; Tzental, _batz_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _batz_; Zapotec,\n_loo_; Nahuatl, _ozomatli_.\n\nThe symbol of this day is subject to few and slight variations. The form\ngiven by Landa, which is also quite common in most of the codices,\nespecially Tro. and Cort., is shown in plate LXV, 64. Slight variants\nare shown in LXV, 65, 66, and 67. An exceptional and peculiar form from\nDres. 32b is seen in LXV, 68. A form from the Perez codex in which an\neye is introduced is given at LXV, 69. The character on the Palenque\nTablet and some other inscriptions, which is supposed to be the symbol\nof this day, is shown at LXV, 70, but the proof that it is, in these\ncases, the day symbol is not so conclusive as that in regard to other\nday symbols, as no method of bringing it into relation with the other\ntime symbols of the inscriptions has been found.\n\nA closely corresponding form is seen in the symbol for the mouth _Tzec_\nas found in the Dres. Codex (see plate LXV, 71). If the glyphs are in\nany sense phonetic, it is probable that in the comb-like appendage to\nthis symbol (Landa's _ca_) we have the _'c_ (_'k_) sound, and that the\nvariation in the main character from the usual _chuen_ glyph (in having\nthe bounding line open and turned right and left at the top) is\nindicative of the variation in the phonetic value. The explanation of\nthe symbol, which replaces the eye in the dog or panther like figure in\nTro. 32c and 33c, and is alluded to by Dr Seler in this connection\n(LXVI, 1), has already been given under the discussion of the \"Third\nDay.\" There, as I have shown, it probably indicates the Maya word\n_choco_, \"heat, warmth,\" alluding to the hot, dry season which parches\nand shrivels up the growing corn. This explanation retains the phonetic\nvalue of the symbol, and it appears also to be entirely consistent with\nthe figures found in connection with it.\n\nThere is another symbol closely allied in form (plate LXVI, 2) which is\nof frequent occurrence in the codices, usually, and, in fact, almost\nexclusively, in the picture spaces, and apparently bearing some relation\nto the offerings. It is often in groups, and is many times repeated in\ngroups on the so-called \"title pages\" of the Tro. and Cort. manuscripts.\nIt, however, frequently occurs in the form seen in the dog's eye (LXVI,\n1), grouped as the other (Dres., 25a, etc) and undoubtedly used as an\nequivalent, as we find numerals attached as with the other form. The\nonly distinction, as will be observed, is the presence or absence of the\nlittle divided square at the top. As that with the divided square is\nmore detailed, it is probably the correct form, and, if so, can not be\ndistinguished from the _Chuen_ symbol.\n\nOn Dres. 29b, 30b, and 31b the symbol shown in plate LXVI, 3, is found\nin each group of characters. This bears a close resemblance to the\nsymbol for the month _Tzec_, but varies in some important respects, as\nwill be seen by comparison. The appendix, as I am inclined to believe,\ngives the _ah_, _ha_, or _hal_ sound, and shows that it is a verb or\nword indicating action. As we find in each group the figure or symbol of\na food animal, the whole series may be supposed to relate to feasts, or\neating, or the collection of food. This suggestion is strengthened by\nthe fact that the _kan_ or maize symbol is placed in connection with the\nanimal figures. It is possible, therefore, that this character may be\ncorrectly rendered by _tziclim_ (_tziclimtah_), \"to distribute, share,\ndivide among many.\" As it is followed in each case by a cardinal-point\nsymbol, and the symbol of the double tongued or toothed deity, probably\nItzamna, is found in each group, it is probable that the text relates to\nreligious festivals. This interpretation, however, is a mere suggestion\nor guess, which as yet I am unable to fortify by any other evidence than\nthe resemblance of the main character to the _Tzec_ symbol.\n\n[Illustration: PL. LXVI COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES]\n\nThe Nahuatl, Tzental, and Quiche-Cakchiquel names of this day are the\nordinary terms in these languages for \"monkey.\" Dr Brinton thinks the\nMaya name, which does not appear to have any signification in this\nlanguage as a separate word (though _chuenche_ is \"aborao, tuble,\" \"a\ncertain tree\"), is derived from a Tzental term, _chiu_, which is applied\nto a particular species of monkey. He and Dr Seler refer to the _chouen_\nin a legend of the Popol Vuh, which undoubtedly stands in close relation\nto _batz_ or \"monkey,\" there spoken of as _hunbatz_. As these words in\nthe Quiche myth appear unquestionably to refer to a species of the\nmonkey tribe, or mythical persons under the symbolism of monkeys, the\nconclusion they reach is probably correct, and justifies the belief that\nthe Maya name should be interpreted \"monkey.\"\n\nThe origin of the symbol is uncertain, and Dr Seler makes no attempt to\nexplain it. The difference between the simple form with the three teeth\nonly (plate LXVI, 2) and the typical _Chuen_ symbol indicates a\ndifference in the word equivalents, or in the signification if\nideographic. It is possible that Brasseur is right in rendering the\nformer by _co_, which signifies \"tooth;\" in which case we may be\njustified in assuming that the additions in the _Chuen_ symbol give the\nadditional phonetic elements in the word. It may be, as supposed by some\nauthors, that it was intended to represent the front view of an open\nmouth of some animal, as _chi_ is the Maya word for mouth.\n\n\nTHE TWELFTH DAY\n\nMaya, _eb_; Tzental, _euob_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _e_ or _ee_; Zapotec,\n_pija_; Nahuatl, _mallinalli_ or _itlan_.\n\nThere are comparatively few variations in the symbol of this day; some,\nhowever, are of sufficient importance to render recognition doubtful but\nfor their presence in the day series. That given by Landa is seen in\nplate LXVI, 4; the form most usual in the Tro. and Cort. codices is that\nshown in LXVI, 5; the variations seen in LXVI, 6, 7, 8, are from the\nDresden Codex, and that in LXVI, 9, is from the Peresianus.\n\nThis character occurs very seldom, if ever, except as a day symbol,\nhence it is presumed to be purely ideographic or pictorial. There is,\nhowever, a deity symbol found in the Tro. Codex (plate LXVI, 10) in\nwhich we see apparently the chief characteristic of the _eb_ symbol.\nHere, however, instead of a dot-bordered tooth, there is a dot-bordered\ndark stripe which runs downward entirely across the face. This is\naccompanied usually by the numeral prefix 11. The symbol of the same\ndeity as found in the Dresden Codex is shown in plate LXVI, 11. Here the\nstripe is reduced to a single broken line. Dr Schellhas contends that he\nis a Death god and the equivalent of the Mexican Xipe. That he is a god\nof the underworld in the Tro. Codex is apparent from his ornaments and\nthe dotted lines on his body or limbs; yet in two instances--plates 5a\nand b--he is represented as a traveling merchant. Whether the deity in\nthe Dresden Codex is the same as that of the Tro. Codex is not\npositively certain, but the presence of the numeral 11 with the symbol,\nand in some instances the dotted lines on the body of the deity,\nindicate that the two are identical. Whether this deity glyph bears any\nrelation to the day symbol is, however, doubtful. The only names of Maya\ndeities I find with _buluc_ (\"eleven\") as a prefix are Ahbuluc-Balam and\nBuluc-Ahau (?). The first, which signifies \"He of the Eleven Tigers,\"\nwas one of the idols made at the festival of the new year Cauac. On one\nof the four plates of the Dresden Codex representing the festivals of\nthe new year (26a) we observe that the image carried by the chac is a\ntiger-like animal marked with dotted lines. Whether this is to be\nconnected with the deity above mentioned is doubtful. The other name,\nBuluc-Ahau, mentioned by Landa, is the name of one of the signs of the\nKatun given in his figure of the cycle, and, although he uses the word\n\"idol,\" does not appear to refer to any particular deity.\n\nIn regard to the names of the first three calendars, Dr Seler remarks as\nfollows:\n\n _E_, _ye_ signifies \"the edge,\" \"sharpness,\" \"the notch;\" _eb_,\n _ebil_, _ebal_, _yebal_, \"a row of notches,\" \"flight of steps,\"\n \"stairs.\" In Quiche-Cakchiquel _e_ signifies \"the tooth,\" \"the\n edge;\" _ee_ is the plural form in Cakchiquel of the word, as _eeb_\n of the Quiche; _euob_ is also a plural form in the Tzental, as I\n think, from a singular _eu-ee_. The name must denote the same thing\n in all the languages, i. e., \"a row of teeth,\" \"flight of steps\"--a\n signification which harmonizes excellently with many Mexican forms\n of the character [plate LXVI, 12] as well as with the Meztitlan\n name of it (_itlan_, \"his tooth\").\n\nDr Brinton says that \"in Maya _eb_ is the plural of _e_, which means\n'points' or 'ends,' like those of pins or thorns, and plainly was\nintended to designate the broom by reference to its numerous points.\nFrom the same idea, rows of teeth received the same name. The Tzental\nand Quiche names _e_ and _euob_--the latter a plural--were from the same\nradical and had the same signification.\" He says the Nahuatl and Zapotec\nnames both signify the brush or broom of twisted twigs, or stiff grass\nused for cleaning and dusting, and also this grass itself. Thus he\nbrings the names of the five calendars into harmony. This explanation\ncorresponds with that given by Clavigero of the Mexican term, which he\nsays is the name of a certain plant of which brooms were made.\n\nI am inclined to believe the symbol in this instance is a mere\npictograph intended to represent the tip of some lanceolate leaf, the\ndots denoting the hairs along the edge. The tips of the \"reed grass,\" as\nshown in the symbolic representation of _Zacatla_ (\"Nombres Geogr\u00e1ficos\"\nby Pe\u00f1afiel; plate LXVI, 13), would give precisely the dot-bordered\ntooth in the symbol. It is to be observed, however, that the Mexican\nsymbol for this day, the usual form of which is shown in LXVI, 14, is\nessentially different and has joined with the green blades the skeleton\nunderjaw. In some instances, as at _Malinaltepec_ (\"Nombres\nGeogr\u00e1ficos\"), the entire skull is added. A more elaborate form of the\nsymbol, from the Borgian Codex plate 26, is given in LXVI, 15. Here the\nskeleton jaw is replaced by the roots of the plant; observe, however,\nthe brush-like projections above. Are we to see in this associated\ndeath's-head a reference to death, or rather to the earth, a symbolism\nundoubtedly found in the Tro. Codex? Or must we suppose that behind the\nname is to be found the signification of the Meztitlan name _itlan_,\nfrom _tlantli_, \"tooth?\" Dr Seler remarks that \"it seems to me quite\npossible that the point surrounded by dots in the character _eb_ is an\nabbreviation of figure 326\" (the prefix to our plate LXIV, 48).[245-1]\n\n\nTHE THIRTEENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _ben_ or _been_; Tzental, _ben_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _ah_; Zapotec,\n_quii_, _ii_, or _laa_; Nahuatl, _acatl_.\n\nThe symbol of this day is subject to but few and, with one or two\nexceptions, but slight variations. Landa's figure is represented at\nLXVI, 16, those usual in the codices in LXVI, 17, 18, 19, and an\nirregular form found in Dres. 10c in symbol 20 of the same plate. When\nused in combination with other glyphs and otherwise than as a day\nsymbol, the form, though usually typical, is subject occasionally to\nwide variations, though there is considerable doubt whether the latter\nare to be considered _ben_ symbols.\n\nDr Seler contends that the figure originated from the plaited reed or\nmat, which, if correct, enables us to trace it by gradations to a wholly\ndifferent figure. But before referring further to these, it is best that\nthe signification of the names should be given, as determined by\nlinguistic evidence.\n\nThe Nahuatl name _acatl_ signifies \"reed,\" \"cane,\" or \"stalk;\" and,\naccording to Ximenes and Brasseur, the Quiche-Cakchiquel _ah_ also\nsignifies \"reed,\" especially the \"cornstalk\" or \"sugar cane.\" The\nZapotec _quii_ has also the same signification, \"reed,\" and Dr Brinton\nsays _laa_ has the same meaning, but Dr Seler says he can not find it\nwith this signification in the lexicons, nor do I find it in any to\nwhich I have access. The Maya and Tzental _ben_, however, presents a\nmore serious difficulty in the attempt to bring it into harmony with the\nothers. Dr Seler contents himself with reference to certain words which\nhave _been_ or _ben_ as their root. This root, he says, signifies\n\"consumed,\" and the words to which he refers mean \"to be consumed,\" \"to\nwaste away,\" \"to fail, be lacking, go away.\" This is also the\nsignification to which Dr Brinton refers. \"I find,\" he says, \"that in\nTzental the dried cornstalk (ca\u00f1a de mais seco) is called _cagh-ben_,\nand from this I doubt not this day-name in that dialect and the Maya was\ntaken and syncopated. The verb _ben_ or _been_ in Tzental means 'to\nwalk, to go,' but in the above compound the _ben_ is from the Maya stem\n_benel_, 'to be used up, to be dead.'\"\n\nThe opinion of Dr Seler, above stated, that the symbol of this day\noriginated from the delineation of the plaited reed or mat, is based on\nthe representation of the mat both in symbols and figures in the Mexican\nand Maya codices. Some of these are shown in our plate LXVI, 21 to 24.\nThe first, 21, is from the Mendoza Codex, and is found also in Tro.\n20*d. These are undoubtedly intended to denote mats or something of a\nkindred nature. The same figure is seen on the roofs of temples and\nhouses, one of which is shown in LXVI, 22, from Tro. 10*c. In these\ninstances they appear to indicate the thatching with which the roof is\ncovered. The form is sometimes varied, as in LXVI, 23, from Tro. 10*a.\nThe symbol which, it is presumed, refers to the mat as seen in Tro.\n21*d, is given in LXVI, 24; that representing the house in Tro. 10*c is\nseen in LXVI, 25; another of a slightly different form, from Tro. 7*c,\nin LXVI, 20; and another, referring also to a house or to the roof, as\nDr Seler supposes, is given in LXVI, 27.\n\nThere can be no question that plate LXVI, 21, is intended to represent a\nmat or something of that nature, nor that the character shown at 24 is\nthe symbol used to represent this mat, straw, or plaited fabric; nor can\nit be doubted that the figures shown at 22 and 23 are conventional\nfigures for houses of some kind. It must also be admitted that the\ncharacters shown at 25, 26, and 27 are symbols denoting these houses.\nAccording to Dr Seler's interpretation, figures 24 and 27 are, in some\ncases, used \"to denote a seat on a mat [24]; sometimes the mat roof of\nthe temple or the temple itself\" (27). In his opinion these characters,\nespecially 27, contain \"the element of the mat and a symbol of\ncarrying--the hand or elements which have been borrowed from the figure\nof the hand--and in these hieroglyphs the transition of the\nrealistically delineated mat into the character _ben_ may be distinctly\ntraced.\"\n\nThat the upper part of plate LXVI, 25 and 26, and of other similar\nfigures in the codices which might be shown, do make a close approach in\nform to the _ben_ symbol, must be admitted. But there is one break in\nthe chain which needs to be closed before the evidence is entirely\nsatisfactory. Does the upper part of these house symbols (25-26)\nindicate roof mats or thatching? An examination of the house figures\nshows these supposed mat figures to be something standing on the top of\nthe roof--something rising, as it were, perpendicularly along and above\nthe comb or crest. Now, precisely such battlements or elevated crests\nappear to have been common on the roofs of the temples or structures\nwhich have been preserved to modern times. We see them in the figures\ngiven by Charnay, Stevens, and other explorers; and what is worthy of\nspecial notice in this connection is, that they sometimes consist of\nopenwork or trellis-like figures. Therefore, if we connect the upper\npart of the house symbols with the _ben_ glyph, it is still by no means\ncertain that it is derived from, or bears any relation to, the mat\ncharacter. We notice further that in the figures of houses this supposed\nmat figure is not used to indicate the thatching, but is clearly\ndistinguished from it. Again, if the upper characters of LXVI, 25, 26,\nare intended to signify the thatching, roof matting, or roof, and are\nsimple ideograms drawn from the thing represented, then the lower\ncharacters in these symbols might well be supposed to represent the wall\nor framework of the house. But the widely different relations in which\nwe find this lower character forbid this conclusion. That the wall may\nbe indicated is true, but if so it must be ikonomatically or by the\nphonetic value of the symbol. I have therefore found it very difficult\nto reach any entirely satisfactory conclusion in regard to these house\nsymbols. That the lower character is phonetic in the true or rebus sense\ncan, I think, be shown, but, notwithstanding the objections I have\npresented, the most satisfactory interpretation of the upper part is\nthat it represents the roof, as we see in the upper figure of LXVI, 25,\nthe crosshatching and the double _ben_ lines. Hence it would seem\nsatisfactory to consider it merely an ideogram or picture but for the\nprefix, which can not be readily accounted for on the idea of a\npictorial representation.\n\nAs we have found that the lower character of plate LXVI, 26, has the\nphonetic value of _ch_ usually combined with _o_ or _u_ (see remarks\nabove on LXV, 44), we may find in this glyph _otoch_, \"house,\" though\nthe full signification of the entire compound symbol appears to embrace\nmore than this. Possibly the upper part is a determinative. The lower\npart, however, of LXVI, 25 and 27, is found, as before remarked, where\nit can have no reference to a building. As it has the two heavy lines\nindicative of the _p_ sound (see explanation of LXIV, 11), and also of\nthe guttural, it is probable that the signification, where a structure\nis referred to, is _pak_ (_pakal_), \"a building, wall, fortification.\"\nBut when it is found in an entirely different relation, as in Tro. 17b,\nwhere it is over an individual tying a deer, it must have an entirely\ndifferent signification. It is possible that it may be consistently\nrendered by _pacoc_ (_paccah_), \"to cord, fasten, bind\" (Henderson), or\nsome derivative thereof. We find it again on Tro. 19*d and 20*d, and\nDres. 18c, 19c, and 20c, where females are represented as bearing\nburdens on their backs. Now, _cuch_ signifies \"to bear, to carry,\" and\nalso \"a load, a burden,\" and _cuch-pach_, \"a carrier, a porter\"\n(literally \"to carry on the back,\" _pach_ denoting \"back\").\n\nIn this instance also the phonetic value assigned it holds good. On Tro.\n17b the same glyph stands above an individual who is in the act of\nstriking a snake which is biting his foot. In this case it has a suffix\nlike that to LXVI, 3, which, as we have stated, probably represents the\nsound _ah_, _ha_, or _hal_, and indicates that the word is a verb. There\nare several words containing the phonetic value assigned the character,\nwhich are applicable, as _pokchetah_, which Perez interprets \"pisar,\nponer el pie sobre algo;\" _puchah_, \"despachurran, machucar;\" _pachah_,\n\"to scatter, break\" (H.); _pech_, \"to crush\" (H.); _pacez_ (_paczah_),\n\"to squeeze, press, crush\" (H.).\n\nIt seems, therefore, quite probable that the lower part of these\ncompound symbols is phonetic.\n\nIf Dr Seler is correct in his supposition that the symbol is derived\nfrom the plaited mat, then it is most likely simply ideographic or a\nmere conventional pictograph. Possibly this is the correct conclusion,\nas I can find no evidence tending to show that it is phonetic. If we\ncould suppose the form was intended to represent a \"road\" or\n\"pathway\"--_be_, _beil_, and _bel_ in Maya, and _beel_ in Zotzil--we\nmight assume it to be phonetic.\n\nThe combinations shown in plate LXVI, 28, 29, 30, and 55, in which the\nsymbol of this day appears, have as yet received no satisfactory\nexplanation. Those shown in LXVI, 28, and 55, are of very frequent\noccurrence and probably indicate some common ceremony, order, or\ndirection in the religious ceremonies. I have a strong suspicion that\nthe first indicates exorcism or driving away the evil spirits, but I\nfind no appropriate Maya word unless it be _pekokalil_, given by\nHenderson. This, however, does not agree with the interpretation\n_Kinichkakmo_, given by Seler to LXVI, 29, above referred to. Seler\ngives to LXVI, 30, the apparently strained interpretation, \"he who is\nconquered in war and brought home prisoner.\" I have no interpretation to\noffer.[248-1]\n\n\nTHE FOURTEENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _ix_ or _hix_; Tzental, _hix_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _balam_, _yiz_,\nor _hix_; Zapotec, _eche_; Nahuatl, _ocelotl_.\n\nThe symbol of this day is found in quite a number of different forms,\nsome of which are wide variations from the prevailing type.\n\nLanda's figure is shown in plate LXVI, 31. The usual forms found in the\nTro. Codex are LXVI, 32 to 37; 36 is somewhat rare. That shown at 38 is\nfound only on plate 30*c, and that showing the animal head (39) on plate\n12c. No essential variations from these are found in either the Codex\nPeresianus or Cortesianus. Those shown in LXVI, 40-42, are from the\nDresden Codex.\n\nThe Nahuatl name and the Quiche-Cakchiquel, _balam_, denote the \"tiger,\"\npossibly the jaguar, though the Mexican name certainly refers to the\n_ocelot_. Dr Brinton says that the Zapotec _eche_, or in the full form\n_be-eche-guia_, has the same signification. Dr Seler, however, derives\nit from the term _peche-tao_, \"the great animal\"--the tiger, or\nferocious animal. But the other names, _ix_, _hix_, _hiix_ or _gix_, as\nthey are variously written (though really one word), present a more\nserious difficulty to the attempt to bring them into harmony with the\nothers.\n\nDr Seler says:\n\n The Cakchiquel term _yiz_, i. e., the Maya _h-ez_, \"the sorcerer,\"\n may well be considered as giving an explanation of the Maya name of\n this day character (_ix_). My conception, after one more link in\n the chain of evidence pointing toward it, is that the day-character\n system has become known to the Mayas through the medium of the\n cognate branches of Chiapas, for we frequently find the\n Tzental-Zotzil _x_ corresponding to the Maya _z_.\n\nDr Brinton says that the Maya, Tzental, and Cakchiquel word _hix_ or\n_ix_ means \"sorcerer,\" though he does not furnish the evidence.\nMoreover, he adds immediately after that \"it is probable _ix_ is a\nvariant of _ik_ or _igh_ 'wind, breath, life,'\" and makes the connection\nby referring to the fact that blowing was practiced in medicine rites.\nIt would have been more satisfactory, however, had he given the evidence\non which he based his assertion that the Maya and Tzental name means\n\"sorcerer.\" According to Ximenes the Cakchiquel name _yiz_ denotes the\n\"sorcerer;\" and it is probable that the signification of _ix_ or _hix_\nis the same, as the codices appear to give support to this conclusion.\n\nOn Dres. 8a the character shown in plate LXVI, 43, stands in the text\nover the figure of a tiger, and evidently refers to it. The close\nresemblance of this to the _ix_ symbol from Tro. 12c shown in LXVI, 39,\nis too manifest to be overlooked. The same symbol is found in Tro. 17c,\nbut here the prefix is changed to the numeral 4; below is a tiger-like\nanimal with a feathered tongue protruding from its mouth. I have taken\nfor granted, from the indicated action and my interpretation of one of\nthe accompanying symbols, that this figure was intended to indicate the\nsorcerer or diviner. This supposition I admit is not supported by\nsufficient evidence to demand acceptance. However, it is probable that\nL\u00e9on de Rosny is justified in rendering LXVI, 43, by _ek-balam_. This\nsupposition will be strengthened by any evidence tending to show that\nthe prefix is properly interpreted by _ek_.\n\nThe symbol for the month _Ceh_, as given in Dres. 49c, is shown in LXVI,\n44, and is the same as Landa's figure minus the suffix or month\ndeterminative. It would seem from the fact that the lower character of\nthis symbol is the same as the lower portion of the symbols for _Yax_\n(LXIV, 12) and _Zac_ (LXVI, 48), that the word _Ceh_, if the writing is\nphonetic or ikonomatic, does not give the entire phonetic equivalent\nunless the _x_ or _c_ of the other names is here softened to _h_. It may\nbe added, however, that Henderson gives both _Ceh_ and _Kez_ as the name\nof the month and the Maya name for \"deer.\" In the Zotzil vocabulary\n\"ciervo\" is _chig_ and \"venado\" _chigh_. There is, however, a difficulty\nin harmonizing this with the symbol for the month _Zip_--in which the\nsame character appears--that I have not been able to explain.\nNevertheless, it may be said, as the lower character appears (from\nevidence that will not be introduced at this point) to have _z_ or _dz_\nas its chief phonetic element, that it is possible the name had\nsometimes _ek_ or _ke_ prefixed. Running through the lower division of\nplates 46-50 of the Dresden Codex is a line consisting of repetitions of\nthe character shown in LXVI, 45. Here we have again our _k'_, _ke_, or\n_ek_ glyph as a prefix. The right portion of the symbol bears a somewhat\nclose resemblance to some forms of the symbol of the day _Lamat_ (but\nnot to _kin_, as has been suggested), and is so interpreted by Brasseur\nand L\u00e9on de Rosny. As _ek_ signifies \"star,\" and _lemba_ \"resplendent,\nbright, shining, sparkling,\" the phonetic value of the glyph may be \"the\nbright, shining star,\" alluding to Venus. According to Henderson,\n_eekil_, _ekil_, or _yekil_ was used to designate this star, _zaztal_\nbeing added to name it as a \"morning star.\" According to the \"Report on\nthe city of Valladolid,\"[250-1] the name given the \"morning star\" was\n_noch eke_ (or _eque_). It is possible, therefore, that Dr F\u00f6rstemann is\nright in supposing that the long numeral series running through plates\n46-50 of this codex relates to the apparent revolution of the planet\nVenus.\n\nIn Dres. 18c is the compound symbol shown in plate LXVI, 46, followed by\n47. In the former we see our _ek_ or _ke_ symbol as the upper character\nand the supposed _cimi_ (LXV, 28) glyph as the lower character, and to\nthe left a prefix. This prefix is precisely that in the symbol for the\nmonth _Zac_ (LXVI, 48), and has presumably the same value in one glyph\nas the other. This will give, as the proper rendering of the symbol\nLXVI, 46, _zeek-cimil_, \"the skull of the dead.\" By referring to the\nfigure below the text, a woman is seen bearing on her back a skull\ninclosed in a wrapping of some kind, which in Kingsborough, where the\ncolor is retained, appears to be cloth. This certainly agrees with the\nrendering of the glyph. The symbol which follows it, shown in LXVI, 47,\nhas one of the elements of LXVI, 27, and, as suggested under \"the\nThirteenth Day,\" should probably be interpreted _cuchpach_, \"a carrier\nor porter\" (or \"bear upon the back\"). In the corresponding glyph in Tro.\n20*d (LXVI, 24) the upper portion, as above stated, refers probably to\nthe hamper or basket-like holder in which the load is carried, and is a\nsimple ideogram; but here (LXVI, 47) the upper character is phonetic,\ncorresponding very closely to the lower part of the symbols for the\nmonths _Yax_ and _Zac_. The character which follows--the lower left-hand\nof the group of four--seen at LXVI, 49, is the well-known symbol for\nwoman. As the women were the burden bearers in Yucatan, the\ninterpretation appears to be consistent. It is therefore probable that\nthe prefix to LXVI, 43, is to be interpreted by _ek_, as Rosny has\nsuggested.\n\nSeler, alluding to the symbol, asks, \"May not the skin of the tiger,\ninstead of the animal itself, be here indicated?\" He further suggests\nthat it represents the round hairy ear and the spotted skin of the\ntiger, and that the glyph shown at LXVI, 39, represents the entire head\nof this animal, of which there can be little doubt.\n\nSome of the symbols of this day, found in the Fejervary Codex, one of\nwhich is shown in LXVIII, 41, appear to favor Seler's idea.[250-2]\n\n\nTHE FIFTEENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _men_; Tzental, _tziquin_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _tziquin_; Zapotec,\n_naa_ or _\u00f1aa_; Nahuatl, _quauhtli_.\n\nLanda's figure is so imperfect in this case that it is not given. The\nusual forms and variations are shown in plate LXVI, 50 to 54. The last\ntwo, which show the widest variation, are from the Dresden Codex.\n\nThe Tzental and Quiche-Cakchiquel, _tziquin_, signifies \"bird\" in\ngeneral, and the Nahuatl, _quauhtli_, \"eagle.\" The Maya and Zapotec\nnames are more difficult to bring into harmony with the others. Dr\nBrinton thinks that the Zapotec name is derived from _na_, \"to know, to\nunderstand, to be able through knowledge.\" This, he says, \"exactly\ncorresponds to the Maya _men_, which means to understand, to be able to\ndo ...; hence in this latter tongue, _ah-men_ means the man of\nknowledge, the wise one, the master of wisdom.\" \"The bird,\" he adds,\n\"was the symbol of wisdom and knowledge.\"\n\nDr Seler says it is difficult to determine the Yucatan name. However,\nfrom the form of the symbol he concludes it is intended to represent an\naged face, by which he connects it with an aged goddess, Ixchel, the\ncompanion of Itzamna, and with certain Mexican deities. In his\nsubsequent paper he says the Zapotec name furnishes linguistic proof of\nthe above conclusion. \"I had concluded,\" he says, \"that the Maya\nhieroglyph represented the image of the old earth mother, the\nuniversally worshipped goddess called Tonantzin, 'our mother,' who is\nconnected in the Codex Vienensis with the eagle symbol.\" He then adds\nthat the Zapotec term _naa_ or _\u00f1aa_ signifies \"mother,\" and thus finds\nthe connection between the calendar names.\n\nIt is probable we will not be far wrong if we assume that reference to\nthe bird as used in this connection is not so much to it as an animal as\nan augury, sign, or portent. The birds introduced in the Dresden and\nTroano codices, especially those on pages 16, 17, and 18 of the former\nand 18* and 19* of the latter, are supposed to have reference to\nauguries. In the \"Vocabulario Castellano Zapoteco,\" under \"Ave,\" we find\n_mani-biici_, \"ave agorera.\" In the Dresden Codex (17b) one of the birds\nintroduced as playing this r\u00f4le is an eagle, or some rapacious species\nresembling an eagle or vulture. Although Seler believes the symbol to\nhave been derived from the aged wrinkled female face, yet he closes his\nobservations on this day in his first article as follows:\n\n I think the reference to the eagle is very distinctly indicated\n [referring to a number of glyphs accompanying or indicating an\n eagle-like bird]. We can understand that these hieroglyphs were\n annexed as attributes of the deities. But how is it that figures\n 687-689 [same as our plate LXVIII, 42] serve as a seat for the\n Chac? Now Chac [he refers to the long-nose god] is not really a god\n of water, but of rain; the rain-producing storm cloud is his\n vehicle; the storm bird is his beast of burden on which he rides.\n\nIt follows from this, notwithstanding his supposition in regard to the\norigin of the symbol, that he looks upon it as signifying the eagle, or\nbird. However, the explanations given by Drs Brinton and Seler of the\nMaya name fail to make a satisfactory connection between the names in\nthe different calendars.\n\nNot only do we find birds introduced on the pages of the Troano and\nDresden codices above referred to, apparently for the purpose of\nindicating augury, but on Dres. 69b we see the long-nose god (probably\nItzamna) sitting on the glyph LXVIII, 42, holding a bird in his arms.\n\nAlso on Dres. 73b, where the groups are composed of short columns, each\napparently relating to storms, winds, etc, we see in the right-hand\ngroup the bird and _men_-like glyph associated. Whether these are in\nfact _men_ glyphs is a question not yet determined. I am as yet unable\nto interpret satisfactorily any of the compound characters of which\nthese supposed _men_ glyphs form a part. If the form shown in LXVI, 28,\nthe lower portion of which is substantially the same as Landa's first\n_l_, is to be accepted as equivalent to LXVI, 55, then it is probable\nthat the symbol of the day does not indicate the phonetic value of the\nname. This would lead to the supposition that the name _men_ is not the\noriginal one applied to the day, or that the symbol has been changed. I\nam inclined to believe one or the other of these suppositions to be\ncorrect. If the symbol could be identified in the inscriptions, I would\nadopt the first supposition until substantial evidence of its\nerroneousness could be produced.\n\nI am unable to offer any suggestions as to the origin of the symbol. I\ndo not think the suggestion that it is intended to represent an aged\nface of woman or man of any force or worthy of serious consideration.\nThe symbol would be just as complete so far as its signification is\nconcerned without the eye as with it.\n\n\nTHE SIXTEENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _cib_; Tzental, _chabin_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _ahmak_; Zapotec,\n_guilloo_ or _loo_; Nahuatl, _cozcaquauhtli_. In addition to these the\nfollowing are also given: Pipil, _tecolotl_; Meztitlan, _teotl itonal_\nor _temetlatl_.\n\nThe forms of this symbol shown in plates LXVI, 56 to 59, and LXVII, 1 to\n3, are those usually found in the codices, the slight differences being\ndue to the greater or less degree of perfection with which they have\nbeen made. Landa's figure is similar to LXVII, 1. The variants in LXVII,\n4 and 5, are from Dres. 46 and 49; but the symbols found in the day\ncolumns of Dres. 46 to 50 must not be taken as evidence of peculiar\ntypes, as they are to a large extent dashed off without care, one or two\nof a column being sufficiently exact for determination and the rest mere\nblotches. I have referred to them here and under other days simply\nbecause Dr Seler has noticed them; hence had I failed to allude to them\nit might be thought an oversight. However, I do not think any of the\nvariations in the day columns of these five plates should be taken into\nconsideration as types.\n\nThe Nahuatl name _cozcaquauhtli_ is the \"royal zopilote\" (_Sarcoramphus\npapa_ of ornithologists). Drs Seler and Brinton agree in the supposition\nthat the Zapotec name is derived from _balloo_, \"the raven or crow.\" Dr\nSeler says that the Quiche-Cakchiquel word _ahmak_ seems to signify the\nvulture, \"who pecks out the eyes,\" \"who makes deep holes;\" while Dr\nBrinton maintains that the Quiche _ahmak_ means \"the master of evil,\"\nreferring to the owl, which is esteemed a bird of evil omen and bad\nfortune. The Pipil _tecolotl_ also denotes \"the night bird or owl.\"\n\n[Illustration: PL. LXVII COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES]\n\nThe Maya and Tzental names, however, present a difficulty not so easily\nexplained. The signification of the former is \"wax, gum, or copal gum,\"\nand also, according to Henderson, \"root.\" According to Brinton the\nTzental radical _chab_ means \"honey, was, bee, a late meal.\" He refers,\nhowever, to the Cakchiquel, where he finds that _ch'ab_ means \"mud,\nclay, mire,\" and suggests that \"as red and black clays were the\nprimitive pigments this may connect the Tzental day name with the Maya.\"\nSeler, however, derives the Maya name from _ci_ or _cii_, \"to taste\ngood,\" \"to smell good;\" and as _ci_ is also the name of the maguey\nplant, and likewise refers to the pulque or intoxicating drink from this\nplant, he concludes that _cib_ must have been formed by the addition of\nthe instrumental suffix, and hence refers to that which is used for\nwine, \"either the honey, or, more correctly, the narcotic root.\"\n\nThis conclusion he thinks is strengthened by the fact that the corkscrew\nfigure, which is the chief element of the _cib_ symbol, is found several\ntimes on vases or earthen vessels (see LXVII, 6). Attention is called in\nthis connection to the fact that _loo_ in Zapotec signifies \"root,\"\nwhich is also one of the meanings given by Henderson to the Maya _cib_,\nwhich would seem to strengthen Dr Seler's conclusion.\n\nThe glyph is seldom if ever found in combination with other characters\nor used otherwise than as a day symbol. This, together with the fact\nthat it is not found except as a day symbol in the beekeeper's calendar\nin the Troano Codex, would seem to indicate that there has been a change\nin the name of the day since the origin of the symbol; or, on the other\nhand, the symbol has been modified from some older form. Nevertheless,\nthere are some indications that it is phonetic and that the corkscrew\nfigure has _b_ as its chief element, whether _cib_ be the word indicated\nor not.\n\nIn the symbol for the day _Caban_ (LXVII, 9) we see the same corkscrew\nfigure, and observe that _b_ is the chief consonant element of the word.\nIn the well-known symbol for woman (LXVI, 49) there appears the same\ncharacter, usually double, one at the front of the face, the other on\nthe back part of the head. I have usually considered this a mere\nconventional symbol, taken from the female head, these corkscrew figures\nindicating the rolls of hair. Nevertheless it is possible that it is\nphonetic, as we see on the cheek the _c_, _ch_, or _k_ character\nheretofore referred to. As _chup_, _chupal_, and _chuplal_ are names for\n\"woman, female, or girl,\" the _p_ may replace the _b_ and represent the\ncorkscrew figure. I am unable, however, to explain the prefix, which\nshould have the _b_ or _p_ sound, or be a determinative. Possibly it may\ndenote _pal_, signifying a young person, though this appears to refer\ngenerally to the male sex. Henderson, however, prefixes _x_ to give it\nthe signification \"daughter, or girl.\"\n\nThat the symbol on vessels as shown in LXVII, 6, indicates liquid, or\ndrink of some kind, is more than probable. It may refer to _balche_ (or\n_baleze_), the ceremonial drink, the symbol indicating the phonetic\nelement _b_.\n\nThe upper portion of the figure shown in LXVII, 7, from Tro. 3*b and 4*b\n(in the space) I was at first inclined to regard as a reptile of some\nkind, but the fact of its presence in the section relating to bees and\nhoney, and the corkscrew markings, render it probable that it is\nbeeswax. To this evidence may be added the fact that the symbol over\nwhich it is placed contains some of the elements of the _cib_ glyph.\nThere are a number of places where quite similar markings appear on\nseats and other things, but these are distinguished by the added line of\ndots, showing it, as will be seen hereafter, to be in these cases the\n_cab_ or _caban_ symbol.\n\nThe facts which have been mentioned, together with the form of the\nsymbol, may possibly lead to a correct understanding of its origin. It\nseems probable that the corkscrew figure, which is the chief, and\napparently only, essential element, is taken from the root of a plant\nand was the conventional method of representing that object. As it\nappears from Henderson's Lexicon that \"root\" was one signification of\n_cib_ (probably from _cibah_, \"to follow, succeed,\" which also signifies\n\"born, manifested, root,\" alluding to origin), and also that in Zotzil\n_yib_ or _yibel_ is \"root\" (raiz de arbol, _yibel-te_), we find the\nreason why this was selected as the symbol to express the sound _cib_.\nThe fact that in the Zapotec _loo_ signifies \"root\" strengthens this\nconclusion and indicates that the symbol is not used simply for the\nsound indicated--that is, phonetically or ikonomatically--but also with\nreference to the signification.\n\n\nTHE SEVENTEENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _caban_; Tzental, _chic_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _noh_; Zapotec,\n_xoo_; Nahuatl, _ollin_. In addition to these, the following are also\nsometimes given: In Meztitlan, _nahui olli_; Pipil, _tecpila nahuatl_.\n\nThis character, as is apparent from plate LXVII, 8-13, is subject to no\nmaterial variation; in fact, to no variation which would prevent us from\nat once identifying it. That shown in LXVII, 8, is Landa's figure. The\nchange in position of the black spot and lines with reference to one\nanother does not appear to have any significance. In the Troano and\nCortesian codices the black dot is sometimes on one side and sometimes\non the other. In the Dresden Codex, however, it is nearly always on the\nleft. The one shown in LXVII, 13, in which there is introduced a new\nelement, is found several times in the last part of the Dresden Codex.\n\nThis character is used very frequently otherwise than as a day symbol,\nbeing found separate and in combination, also as a mark on a number of\narticles. As it is possible to determine with reasonable, and in fact\nsatisfactory, certainty its signification in a number of instances where\nused otherwise than as a day symbol, some of these will be noticed, as\nthey seem to furnish strong evidence of phoneticism. But I repeat here\nthe statement made at the commencement of this paper, that in using this\nterm \"phoneticism,\" I include that which may, in a strict\nclassification, be called ikonomatic. However, before referring to\nthese, it is best to give the interpretations of the names which have\nbeen suggested, as the bearing of our interpretations of the symbols\nwill then be better understood.\n\nThe Mexican name _ollin_ or _olin_ is generally interpreted \"motion or\nmovement,\" with special reference to the earthquake. Dr Seler, however,\nadds \"caoutchouc ball.\" In his first paper, heretofore referred to, he\nremarks in regard to the Maya, Tzental, and Quiche-Cakchiquel names:\n\"There is not much to be drawn from these words.\" In his subsequent\npaper he apparently relies upon the usual signification of the Mexican\nterm, and from this and the signification of the Zapotec _xoo_,\n\"powerful, strong, violent,\" concludes that the Tzental name may be\nconsistently rendered by \"large, powerful,\" and the Maya name by \"that\nwhich is brought down, which is above,\" reference being made to\nascending and descending. Dr Brinton derives the Maya term from _cab_,\n\"might or strength,\" on the authority of the _Motul Dicc._, and says\nthat in this sense it corresponds precisely with the Tzental _chic_\n(equal Maya _chich_, \"cosa fuerta y dura\"), the Quiche-Cakchiquel _noh_,\n\"strong, great,\" and the Zapotec _xoo_, \"force, power, or might.\" Dr\nSeler, however, concludes that the Zapotec name is here to be\ninterpreted \"earth,\" or to be understood as referring to the earth. He\nthinks that the day symbol is an abbreviated form of, or derived from,\nLXVI, 49, which he takes to be a symbol of the goddess Chiribias or\nIxchebelyax, whom he identifies with Zaczuy, \"the white maiden.\" As will\nbe observed, we have expressed the opinion that this glyph is a symbol\nfor woman in the general sense, which conclusion appears to be confirmed\nby its connection with different female figures. There are, however,\ncertain prefixes and suffixes which may serve to give it a specific\napplication; for example, in LXVII, 14, from Dres. 16c, the prefix,\naccording to my interpretation, contains the _z_ sound as its chief\nphonetic element. It is possible that in this case a particular person\nmay be referred to by the prefix, the woman symbol being here simply a\ndeterminative. Dr Brinton, in his explanation of the month name _Zip_,\nremarks: \"This was _Zuhuy Zip_, the virgin _Zip_, her name being\nproperly _Dzip_, 'to skin, to dress slain animals.'\" I prefer, however,\nto interpret the symbol by \"maiden,\" or \"young woman,\" the prefix\nsignifying _zuhuy_. Nevertheless, the suffix in some instances, as\nLXVII, 15, from Dres. 18b, may indicate that a sacred or mythological\npersonage is referred to, as it is added as a suffix in some cases to\ndeity symbols; however, as it is often found in other relations, where\nit can have no such signification, I am not inclined to give it this\ninterpretation, as the evident female deities are denoted by quite\ndifferent glyphs.\n\nThe evidence that the Caban symbol is in some sense phonetic appears to\nme to be too strong to be rejected. In the first place, one of its chief\nelements is the corkscrew figure, which, as shown under the preceding\nday, appears to have _b_ as its consonant element, this sound being a\nprominent element of both _cib_ and _caban_. It also has been shown that\nit is not out of place in the woman glyph, under the supposition that\nthis is also phonetic, as _chup_ or _chupal_ is the Maya name for woman,\nand the change from _b_ to _p_ is not uncommon. It is found in several\nplaces as that out of which plants are growing, as LXVII, 16, from Tro.\n32b, which appears to represent some leguminous plant supported by a\nstake driven into the ground. It is that on which persons are sitting\nIndian fashion, and on which others are lying; again, it is that out of\nwhich a serpent is arising. As \"earth,\" \"ground,\" will furnish an\nentirely satisfactory explanation in all these cases, there is no\napparent reason why it should not be accepted. As _cab_ has \"earth\" as\none of its leading significations, we not only find therein a connection\nwith the day name, but also an indication of phoneticism.\n\nIn Cort. 30a is the figure shown at LXVII, 17. The animal represented,\nnotwithstanding the quadruped head, is conceded to be intended for the\nserpent. The shading around the vessel, a blotch of which is on the\nserpent's nose, I take for the clay or paste out of which the vessel is\nbeing formed, or to be formed. In the division immediately below is a\nrepresentation of what appears to be some step in the manufacture of\nvessels. May this not be correctly interpreted by _kancab_, \"la terra\nroja o amarilla,\" or \"red clay?\" Henderson gives _cancan_ as an\nequivalent term of _kankan_. As I have not seen a copy of the colored\nedition of this codex, I can not say whether this interpretation is\nborne out by the color of the shading. If this interpretation be\ncorrect, the serpent figure must be used symbolically or as a true\nrebus.\n\nIn Tro. 9*c an individual is represented lifting what is supposed to be\nhoney or honeycomb out of a box-shape object on which is the _caban_\nsymbol. This symbol is presumed to indicate the contents--\"honey.\" If\nthis supposition be correct, then, as _cab_ is the Maya name for\n\"honey,\" we have in this coincidence in sound and glyph another\nindication of pboneticism. Support is given to this interpretation by\nthe fact that this is found in what is known as the \"bee section,\" and\nthat on the upper division of the same plate the same figure, with the\n_caban_ symbol upon it, is seen in the hands of an individual who holds\nit to a bee.\n\nAs the character when used otherwise than a day symbol is frequently,\nperhaps most generally, drawn with a suffix, as shown in LXVII, 18, I\nsuggest that it is possible it is a conventional method of representing\nearth or soil. By reference to the Borgian Codex, plate 11, also 19a and\n61b, it will be seen that where earth is introduced into the picture it\nis indicated by heavy and wavy lines, as shown in LXVII, 19. This bears\na very strong resemblance to the suffix of LXVII, 18. The corkscrew or\nroot figure is added as appropriate, as an element, in forming an earth\nfigure. Such, I am inclined to believe, is the origin of the symbol\nwhich, when used to indicate anything else than earth, is used\nphonetically or ikonomatically. The figure shown in LXVII, 20, from\nDres. 30a, which Seler calls a serpent, is merely the representation of\na clay image and the seat or oratorio in which it is placed. It is\nprobably from something of comparatively small size, burnt in one piece.\nThe mark of the earth symbol, to distinguish the substance of which it\nis made, is certainly appropriate. In Tro. 6b we see another on which is\nquite a different symbol, indicating, as will hereafter be shown, that\nthe material is wood.\n\nThe compound character in LXVII, 21, is found in Tro. 9*b and 10*c. It\noccurs in the latter twice, the parts, however, reversed in the parallel\ngroups, while in that of 9*b one is above the other. These variants do\nnot necessarily indicate a difference in the signification, as can\nreadily be ascertained by comparing characters in the numerous parallel\ngroups. Omitting the prefix, this maybe rendered _mak-cab_, \"to eat\nhoney without chewing (that is, by sucking); to break into a hive and\nsteal the honey.\" By reference to the plates on which the symbols are\nfound the appropriateness of this rendering will be apparent, if I\nrightly interpret the figures below the text. There we see the twisted\nred symbols denoting the fire kindled beneath the hives, or beehouses,\nby which to drive out or destroy the busy little workers. In one of the\nfires we observe bone symbols, probably denoting a method of giving to\nthe smoke an unpleasant odor, as rags were formerly used in some\nsections of our country for the same purpose.\n\nThe characters shown in LXVII, 22 and 23, are from the upper part of\nCort. 22, which is supposed to be the right half of the so-called \"title\npage\" of the Tro. Codex. These are interpreted by Seler, and probably\ncorrectly, as indicating \"above\" and \"below\" (LXVII, 22, the former, and\nLXVII, 23, the latter). By following the line in which these characters\nare found, through the two pages, beginning at the left of the plate of\nthe Tro. Codex, the result appears to be as follows, giving the\nsignification of the characters so far as known: First, the four\ncardinal points in one direction, then two characters apparently\ncorresponding with the two we have figured, one of which is partly\nobliterated; next the cardinal points in an opposite direction, after\nwhich follow the two characters shown in LXVII, 22 and 23. As the right\nhalf of the first (22) is the _cab_ or _caban_ symbol, it is presumable\nthat it has here substantially the same phonetic value. It is probable,\ntherefore, that the whole compound character maybe rendered _yokcabil_\n(or _okcabil_), \"above the earth,\" or as Henderson, who gives two words\nof this form, interprets the first, \"over, above the earth, above.\" The\nsecond (LXVII, 23) has also as its chief part the _cab_ symbol, and the\nupper right-hand portion appears to have _x'm_ as its chief phonetic\nelements. It is possible that _cabnix_; \"a stair,\" \"downward,\" given by\nHenderson, furnishes the phonetic equivalent of the compound character.\nThese six directions, according to Dr J. W. Fewkes,[257-1] were noted by\nthe Tusayan Indians in some of their religious ceremonies. Mr Cushing\nsays the same thing is true in regard to some of the Zu\u00f1i ceremonies.\n\nPlate LXVII, 24, is a compound character from Dres. 39b, below which the\nlong-nose deity holds in his hand a peculiar article (LXVII, 25), \"as\nif,\" says Seler, \"pouring out of a bottle.\" That the prefix has the\ninterior cross-hatched when complete appears from a number of other\nplaces, as, for example, in the upper division of the same plate. This,\nas heretofore stated, gives the _x_ or _ch_ sound. It is possible,\ntherefore, that the symbol, omitting the right portion, should be\ninterpreted _xachcab_, \"abrir de par en par,\" or _hechcab_, \"to open\nlittle by little, to develop, discover it\" (Henderson). As the right\nportion has a character resembling the _Muluc_ symbol as its chief\nelement, and below it the _u_ glyph, we may translate it _muyal_,\n\"cloud.\" This would give as the meaning of the entire symbol \"open the\ncloud\"--that is, \"to pour out the rain.\" As this is connected with a\nrain series, and we see a similar glyph (though with different prefix)\non plate 38b, where the same deity is in the midst of a rain storm and\nholding in his hand a similar object, the rendering appears to be, at\nleast, appropriate. It is to be further observed that this combined\n_Caban_ and _Muluc_ symbol is found frequently in connection with rain\nstorms and cloud symbols.\n\nAccording to the interpretation given LXVII, 22 and 24, the compound\nsymbol shown at 26, from Dres. 35b and 34b, should be rendered _Yokcabil\nmuyal_, \"the cloud above.\" As we see in both places, in the picture\nunder the text, the looped serpent inclosing water, which Dr Seler\nconsiders the \"water sack\" or cloud, this interpretation is appropriate.\nAs further confirmation of the interpretation given LXVII, 22, attention\nis called to the picture in Tro. 32*c over which the same symbol is\nfound. Here the allusion is doubtless to the basket-like covering over,\nor \"above,\" the black deity lying on a mat.\n\n\nTHE EIGHTEENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _edznab_ or _ezanab_; Tzental, _chinax_; Quiche-Cakchiquel,\n_tihax_; Zapotec, _gopaa_; Nahuatl, _tecpatl_.\n\nThe form of the symbol of this day varies but little in the codices, as\nshown by plate LXVII, 28-31. It is seldom found in this form in\ncombination. If its equivalent is given in these, it is of the form\nshown in 33. It is, however, occasionally seen on articles of stone, as\nthe spearpoint (32) and stone hatchet (34) and sacrificial knife. It\nalso appears in the symbol for the stone mortar (36) from Tro. 19c.\nBefore discussing its signification and probable origin we will give the\nsignifications which have been suggested of the different names of the\nday.\n\nThe signification of the Nahuatl name--_tecpatl_--is \"flint.\" Dr Brinton\nsays, \"especially the flint-stone knife used in sacrificing, to cut the\nvictim.\" Dr Seler finds agreement in the Tzental name from a statement,\nby Nu\u00f1ez de la Vega, that the symbol _chinax_, or rather the tutelary\ngod of the same, was a great warrior, who was always represented in the\ncalendars with a banner in his hand, and that he was slain and burned by\nthe nagual of another heathen symbol. Dr Brinton states that the name\n\"is an old or sacred form of the usual _zni-nax_, 'knife.'\" The literal\nmeaning of the Cakchiquel _tihax_ is, according to Ximenes, \"it bites,\nscraping\" (muerde rasgando). Dr Seler, however, affirms that Ximenes\n(with what authority he knows not) gives \"obsidian\" as the meaning. He\nthinks the word is related to the root _teuh_, \"cold\"--_tih-ih_, \"to be\ncold\"--with which may be compared the words _tic_, \"to stick in, prick;\"\n_tiz_, \"to stitch,\" and _tiztic_, \"pointed.\"\n\nIn regard to the Zapotec name, _gopa_, _gopaa_, or _opa_, the authors\nnamed differ quite widely, Dr Seler deriving it from _rogopa_, \"cold,\"\nand Dr Brinton suggesting that it is more likely \"a variant of _guipa_,\na sharp point or edge, whence the word for stone knife, _gueza-guipa_,\nfrom _guia_, stone.\"\n\nThe Maya name, however, does not appear to be readily brought into\nharmony with the others. Dr Seler simply remarks that it may be related\nto the root _e_, \"firm, rigid, hard.\" Pio Perez offers no explanation.\nDr Brinton suggests that it is a figurative expression for the\nsacrificial knife, from _nab_, something anointed, or blood, and _edz_,\nto adjust, to point, to sharpen.\n\nThere can be no question that the articles in the codices on which the\ntrembling cross is found consists, in most instances, if not all, of\nstone. Hence it is a reasonable conclusion that the primary\nsignification of the symbol is stone. The Zotzil name for \"flint\"\n(pedernal) is _zuiton_.\n\nI am inclined to believe that the symbol is derived from a conventional\nform used for indicating stone or flint, probably from the cracks or\nfissures in it.\n\nI am not prepared yet to discuss the somewhat similar figures which\nassume the form of the St Anthony cross. Various interpretations, as\nsymbol for \"union,\" \"night sun,\" etc, have been given. However, as this\nform is never used as a day symbol, it has no direct relation to the\npresent discussion.\n\n\nTHE NINETEENTH DAY\n\nMaya, _cauac_; Tzental, _cahogh_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _caok_, _cook_;\nZapotec, _ape_, _appe_, _aape_; Nahuatl, _quiahuitl_.\n\nThe various forms of the symbol of this day are shown in plate\n37-48--that by Landa at 37; those of the Troano and Cortesian codices at\n38-43, and those from the Dresden Codex at 45-47. The irregular form\ngiven at 44 is from Tro. 28d, and that at 48 from the Peresianus.\n\nThis symbol is found quite frequently in combination with other\ncharacters, in some of which its phonetic value can be ascertained with\nreasonable certainty. For example, it forms the lower half of the symbol\nfor the month _Yax_, as seen at LXIV, 12; also in the symbol for the\nmonth _Zac_ (LXVI, 48). In both these instances its chief phonetic\nelement appears to be the guttural sound _k_, or _ks_. The essential\nelements are also found frequently on objects which are undoubtedly of\nwood and where no reasonable explanation can be given except that it\nsignifies \"wood\" in these places. For example, it is found on what\nappear to be boards carried in the hands of individuals, on Tro. 32*b\n(LXVII, 49); and it also is seen on what appear to be wooden boxes or\ngums from which the honeycomb is being removed, as Tro. 5*c and 9*a. Dr\nSeler, who gives quite a different interpretation of the character from\nthat presented here, admits that these are boards. It is also found on\ntrees, as Tro. 15*a (shown in LXVIII, 1) and 17*a, and Dres. 26c, 27c,\nand 28c. It is marked on the walls of houses or canopied seats, as Tro.\n6b, 29*c, and 18*b. Under the last mentioned we observe the _cab_\nsymbol, showing that it is a building placed on the ground and not on a\nstone foundation. It also appears on the ends of beams, as at Tro. 9a\nand 22*a. True, Dr Seler contends that these are stones instead of\nweight poles, but I think all trappers will decide against him. Again,\nit appears on seats (Tro. 13a and 14*a) and also marked on heads, one of\nwhich is shown in LXVIII, 2. That the symbol is not intended to indicate\nthe different articles on which it is found is evident; hence it must be\ngiven to denote the substance of which these things are formed, which I\nmaintain can only be wood. That the trees and boards must be wood is\nadmitted; that the walls of many of the houses and of some of the other\nbuildings of Yucatan were of wood must be admitted; that seats were\noften of wood is well known. The heads with this mark are in all\nprobability representations of wooden masks. Masks are represented in\nthe hands of individuals at several places in the codices, as Dres.\n42(1)a and in Peresianus. I therefore conclude that in all these cases\nthe symbol is to be interpreted by _che_, _cheil_, \"wood, tree, timber,\nstick.\" In order to show the difference between the explanation given\nhere and that by Dr Seler, I copy the latter:\n\n We find, for instance, on the one hand the undoubted application\n which is connected with the idea of cloud or rain. Thus, in the\n hieroglyph, figure 80, the accompanying hieroglyph of figure 46,\n i. e., the bird Moan. So also the one in figure 28 (p. 107) the\n accompanying hieroglyph of the name Kinchahau, which, besides\n cauac, contains further the element of fire and that of the\n hatchet, which may remind us of the ray [or flash] darting from the\n cloud. The hieroglyph cauac is, however, used far more commonly in\n the sense of \"stone\" or \"heaviness.\" This is most clearly shown in\n the case of the animal figures pictured in Cod. Tro. 9a and 22*a,\n where the stone laid upon and weighing down the horizontal beam is\n represented by the element cauac. But this explanation must be\n accepted also, because we find the pyramidal foundation of the\n temple covered with the element cauac. And where, in Cod. Tro.\n 15*a, to the Chac who is felling a tree is opposed the death god,\n also felling a tree, covered by the element cauac, it is clear that\n here there is substituted with the death god a rigid stone in place\n of what with the Chac is a sprouting tree. The numerous cases in\n which the hieroglyph cauac serves as a seat or footstool of the\n gods are sometimes easily interpreted as signifying clouds, but in\n the majority of cases it undoubtedly represents \"stone,\" homologous\n to the hieroglyph caban and the element _tun_, \"stone,\" itself\n (figure 85), both of which are found equally often denoting the\n seat and footstool of the gods. It is equally evident that in the\n hieroglyph figure 84, in which there is indicated the bearing of a\n burden on the back, the element cauac is to be understood simply as\n the expression of the weight, the burden. In the peculiar cases\n where we see the gods holding a board provided with the elements of\n the character cauac, or where a board is placed before the gods,\n furnished with a plaited handle whose side bears the element cauac,\n the latter seems to relate to a sounding board, for the\n accompanying hieroglyphs seem to signify music. Finally, there can\n be found a direct homology between the element cauac and the\n element tun. This is seen in the hieroglyph of the hunting god of\n figure 83, whose distinguishing mark is usually an eye or the\n element tun (i. e., a precious stone), which he hears in the front\n of the headdress. The hieroglyph of this god is written sometimes\n as in figure 81, sometimes as figure 82. And that the element here,\n which in figure 82 replaces the element cauac, is to be understood\n in fact as tun or \"stone, precious stone,\" is evident, on the one\n hand from the application of the precious stone in the headdress\n (tun, \"piedra, piedra preciosa\"), and, on the other hand, from its\n use as the base of the pole on which Mam, the Uayeyab demon, is set\n up during the xma kaba kin (Cod. Dres. 25c). Now, it is true that a\n connection of ideas can be established with considerable certainty\n between clouds, rain, and stone, for in that region every rain was\n a thunderstorm. But at the same time it will be found\n comprehensible that a barrier of doubt was removed when I\n discovered in the course of my Zapotec studies that in Zapotec the\n same word was used for \"rain\" and \"stone,\" namely, _quia_, _quie_.\n\n[Illustration: PL. LXVIII COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES]\n\nAccording to the explanation I have given above, the chief phonetic\nelement of the character is the guttural sound _k_, _ks_ (or _x_), and\n_ch_. As additional evidence tending to confirm this conclusion, the\nfollowing examples are given:\n\nSymbols 61, LXV, from Tro. 22*a, and 62, from Dres. 1 (42), have already\nbeen explained, the first as signifying _kutz_ or _cutz_, \"the turkey,\"\nand the second _tzac_, the name of a certain fish found in the senotes.\nIn the first (61) the first or left-hand character is our _Cauac_ symbol\nand has the _k_ sound, and the same symbol forms the right portion in\nthe second (62) and also has the _k_ sound. In LXVI, 47, from Dres. 18c,\nthe _Cauac_ symbol forms the first or upper portion. The whole compound\nsymbol, as above shown, may be consistently interpreted _cuchpach_, \"a\nporter or carrier;\" literally, \"one who bears on the back.\" Again we see\nthe _k_ sound given the character is consistent. The symbol for the\nmonth _Ceh_, as found in the Dresden Codex, is shown at LXVI, 44. In\nthis the last or lower portion is also the _Cauac_ character, and,\naccording to the value assigned it, should have a harder sound than the\nsimple aspirate. That such is the case is rendered probable by the fact\nthat Henderson gives _ceh_ and _kez_ both as names of the month and as\nMaya words for \"deer.\" In the Zotzil _chigh_ is the name for \"deer.\" It\nis therefore apparent that the symbol has here the guttural sound.\n\nThe glyphs in LXVII, 50 and 51 (Cort. 21), probably signify \"night\" and\n\"evening\"; the first (50), _akab_, \"night,\" and the second (51),\n_kankin_, one signification of which, according to Henderson, is\n\"evening.\" The wing-like appendage is probably a time determinative.\nThese last interpretations are of course given with some doubt. However,\nthis may be said in their favor, that wing-like appendages are usually\nattached to time symbols, and that the figures below the text represent\npersons, each of whom carries what appears to be a wheel, possibly like\nthose used in keeping time, and the main character of the preceding\nsymbol in both cases is the _Manik_ glyph, having _ch_ as its chief\nphonetic element and _chackinil_, signifying \"hours, wheel.\" Precisely\nthe same symbol as LXVII, 51, preceded by the _Manik_ glyph, and a wheel\nin the hand of the person figured below the text, is seen in Troano\n35d.\n\nThe character shown in LXVII, 52, from Tro. 35c, may possibly be\ncorrectly rendered by _bakah_ (_baakal_), \"to roll round about, to go\nround about,\" alluding to the flight of the vulture figured below the\ntext. This supposition appears to be strengthened by the probable\ninterpretation of the symbol immediately below it (LXVII, 53),\n_malaalahah_, \"without repeated buffetings.\" The character given in\nLXVIII, 3, from Tro. 31a, may be interpreted _pak_, \"to sow seed, to\nplant,\" and that shown in LXVIII, 4, from the second division of the\nsame plate, indicates the same word, as the transposition of the parts\nof a symbol does not always indicate a change of signification.\nPossibly, however, its equivalent may be _capak_, \"to reseed or sow seed\nthe second time,\" or _kapak_, \"to place in a trench or hole.\" As the\npersons figured below the text appear to be planting seed by dibbling\nthem in with a stick, this would seem to be an appropriate rendering. Dr\nSeler appears to have entirely misunderstood these figures, as he thinks\nthey represent the deities pouring out water. I have in a previous part\nof this paper given some reasons for believing that these plates refer\nto the planting and cultivation of corn.\n\nThese examples will suffice at this point.\n\nIt is difficult to decide as to the origin of the glyph. However, I am\ninclined to believe it has grown out of a conventional symbol for wood,\npossibly drawn from the little knots and marks seen on the inside\nsurface of split wood. This may be wide of the true explanation, but all\nthe indications I can find point in this direction. As \"wood\" (_le\u00f1a_)\nin Zotzil (I do not know what it is in Tzental) is _ci_--equal to _ki_\nor _qi_--we obtain the guttural sound which appears to be the chief\nelement of the symbol. In its use it appears to shade off from the hard\nto the soft sound.\n\nThe Zapotec name _ape_, which, according to Dr Brinton, may properly be\ntranslated by \"lightning,\" or \"the lightning flash,\" is much like the\nname for \"fire\" which prevails throughout Oceanica. Commencing with the\nMalay _api_, we trace it through the Oceanic islands in such forms as\n_api, lap, yap, nap, yaf_; to New Zealand _kapura_; Tonga and Samoan\n_afi_, and Hawaiian _ahi_.\n\nIn the Zapotec words _laari-api-niza_ and _ri-api-laha_, translated\n\"relampage, relampaguear,\" we find precisely the original form of the\nOceanic word for \"five.\"\n\n\nTHE TWENTIETH DAY\n\nMaya, _ahau_; Tzental, _aghual_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _hunahpu_; Zapotec,\n_lao_ or _loo_; Nahuatl, _xochitl_.\n\nThe symbol for this day, except where evidently imperfectly drawn, is\nsubject to but few and slight changes, that given by Landa corresponding\nto the form found in the codices.\n\nThe usual and correct form is shown in LXVIII, 5-7; slight variations\nare seen in LXVIII, 8 and 9. Dr Seler figures several other varieties,\nbut as these are from plates of the Dresden Codex, where the symbol\nis in columns, where they are evidently hastily made, without any\nattempt to have more than one or two in a column complete, they are not\ngiven here. The character represented in LXVIII, 10, is from the Tikal\ninscription, and that in LXVIII, 11, from the Palenque Tablet.\n\n[Illustration: PL. LXIX SHELL BEARING MAYA GLYPHS\n\nThis shell, on which are engraved seven Maya hieroglyphs, was found in\nBelize and courteously sent to the Bureau of American Ethnology by Sir\nAlfred Moloney, Governor of British Honduras. The shell is here figured\nfor the purpose of placing it before students of Central American\npaleography[TN-3]]\n\nThe Maya and Tzental names signify \"king, lord, sovereign.\" The\nderivation of the word has been explained in various ways. Brasseur\nexplains it by \"the lord of the collar,\" _ah-au_, as does Dr Brinton;\nStoll gives \"lord of the cultivated lands,\" from the Ixil, _avuan_, \"to\nsow.\" Dr Seler, however, is disposed to derive the name from the\nmasculine prefix _ah_ and _uinic_ or _vinak_, \"man.\" His method of\nreaching this conclusion is as follows:\n\n For the Tzental word _aghual_, standing parallel with the Maya\n _ahau_, which doubtless corresponds to the abstract form _ahaual_\n of the word _ahau_, is to be referred rather to a primitive form\n _avu_, _a'ku_, _ahu_, than to _ahau_. In the Tzental Pater Noster\n which Pimental gives, we find the phrase \"to us come Thy kingdom\n (Thy dominion)\" expressed by the words _aca taluc te aguajuale_.\n The primitive meaning of _ahau_ is certainly \"man,\" \"lord,\" and the\n two roots of similar significance, _ah_ and _vu_ (see _uinic_,\n _vinak_, \"man\") seem to concur in this word.\n\nHe explains the Quiche-Cakchiquel _hunahpu_ by _hun_, \"one,\" and _ahpu_\n\"lord of the blowpipe,\" or \"blowpipe shooter.\" Dr Brinton translates it\nthe \"One Master of Power.\" He brings the Mexican name into harmony by\nrendering it \"the flower of the day\"--that is, the sun; and the Zapotec\nby rendering it \"eye,\" meaning \"the eye of the day\"--i. e., the sun.\n\nWhen we attempt to bring the symbol of the day into harmony with the\nMaya name, we encounter a difficulty which can be overcome only by\nfollowing a different line from that suggested by Dr Brinton or Dr\nSeler. That the character shown in LXVIII, 12, is the symbol for the\ncardinal point \"east,\" which in Maya is _likin_, is now generally\nadmitted, and that the lower portion is the symbol for _kin_, \"day\" or\n\"sun,\" is also admitted. We are therefore justified in concluding that\nthe upper portion, which is the _Ahau_ symbol, stands for _li_, and that\n_l_ is its consonant element. If Landa's second _l_ (shown in LXVIII,\n43) is turned part way round, it will be seen that it is a rough attempt\nto draw the _Ahau_ symbol. If a careful study is made of his _l_'s as\ngiven in his list, and his example of spelling _le_, and of the similar\ncharacters in the codices, it will be seen that both his _l_ characters\nare derived from the same original. For example, the character shown in\nLXV, 60, from Tro. 22*a is precisely the combination which this author\ntranslates _le_, \"a snare,\" or \"to snare.\" By referring to the plate it\nwill be seen that it is followed by the character (LXV, 61) which we\nhave interpreted _kutz_, \"turkey,\" and that in the picture below the\ntext there is a lassoed turkey. It is apparent, therefore, that both\nthese forms are used sometimes for words of which _l_ is the chief\nphonetic element, and that the parallelogram and two interior dots are\nthe essential elements. The day symbol is of less frequency in\ncombination than the other form, but it sometimes occurs. It must,\nhowever, be distinguished from the closely allied _p_ symbol heretofore\nalluded to.\n\nFrom what has been shown in regard to the symbol it would seem, if\nconsidered phonetic, that the original day name it was intended to\nrepresent contained _l_ as its chief consonant element. If ikonomatic,\nthe name of the thing indicated had _l_ as its chief element.\n\nI think there can be little doubt that the symbol, as has been suggested\nby others, was taken from the full face, the central double line\nrepresenting the nose, the two open dots the eyes, and the circle below\nthe mouth. Now, according to Fuller's Zapotec Vocabulary, the name for\nface is _lu_, which is the Zapotec name of the day. As has been stated,\nDr Brinton thinks the Nahuatl and Zapotec names refer to the sun, and he\nis inclined also to believe that the \"ruler\" or \"sovereign\" referred to\nby the names of the Maya dialects is the sun.\n\nI think we may rest assured that the symbol of this day was derived from\nthe full face, and that the word (for face) it was intended to indicate\nhad _l_ as its chief phonetic element--possibly from _lec_, \"brow,\nfront, forehead.\" If derived from the face, its use as a day symbol, and\nin numerous combinations, proves beyond question that it is phonetic in\nthe true or in the rebus sense.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[205-1] Study of the Manuscript Troano, pref., p. viii.\n\n[205-2] American Anthropologist, Washington, July, 1893.\n\n[207-1] The plates are designated by Roman numerals, and the figures by\nthe Arabic numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. Hence LXIV, 1, signifies figure 1 of\nplate LXIV; LXIV, 2, figure 2 of plate LXIV, etc.\n\n[208-1] American Anthropologist, July, 1893, p. 254.\n\n[208-2] There appears to be much confusion among writers who have referred\nto this subject in regard to the \"Black Deities\" of the codices. Dr\nBrinton's remarks on this subject in his late work, \"A Primer of Mayan\nHieroglyphics,\" does not clear up the confusion. Apparently he has not\ndiscovered that quite a number of these are merely black figures of\nwell-recognized deities not thus usually colored. It appears also, judging\nby his statements, that Dr. Brinton has failed to identify the\ncharacteristics by which the different deities of this class are to be\ndistinguished. Dr Schellhas, in his excellent paper \"Die Gottergestallen\nder Maya Handschriften,\" fails also to properly distinguish between these\ndeities. Dr Seler, whose profound studies have thrown much light on the\nMaya hieroglyphs, fixes quite satisfactorily the characteristics of some\nof these deities, yet he confounds others which should have been\nseparated.\n\n[209-1] Dr Brinton (Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 93) claims to have\ndiscovered that this hitherto supposed \"vessel\" is, in reality, \"a drum.\"\nAs the four (Cort. 27a) are without any accompaniments to indicate their\nuse as drums, and as each has above it one of the cardinal point signs,\nthere is nothing, unless it be the form, to lead to the supposition that\nthey are drums. In the same division of the two preceding and three\nfollowing pages we see vessels of different kinds represented. In the\nlower divisions pages 29 and 30, are vessels somewhat of the same\nelongate, cylindrical form, borne on the backs of individuals; and also in\nthe lower division of page 40 are four tall cylindrical vessels, in each\nof which the arm of a deity figure is thrust. This section is copied in Dr\nBrinton's work with the subscript \"The beneficent gods draw from their\nstores.\" Additional proof, if any is needed to show that these are\nvessels, is found in the Tro. Codex. On plates 6* and 7* are tall\ncylindrical vessels with the same inverted V marks on them; moreover, one\nof them has the upper portion margined by the same tooth-like projection\nas those in the Cortesian plate. That these are vessels of some kind is\napparent from the use the pictures show is made of them.\n\n[209-2] See Brasseur's lexicon under _bacab_, also the mention below,\nunder the day _Ik_, of four vessels.\n\n[210-1] Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie, p. 115.\n\n[210-2] A Study of the Manuscript Troano, pp. 80 and 56.\n\n[214-1] Jour. Anthrop. Inst. G. B. and I., November, 1889, p. 121.\n\n[214-2] Ibid., 1885, p. 199.\n\n[214-3] Polynesian Race, vol I, pp. 75-77.\n\n[214-4] Rev. Richard Taylor, Te-Ika-a-Maui; London, 1870.\n\n[215-1] American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 263-264.\n\n[216-1] Historia de los Mexicanos, as quoted by Brinton.\n\n[216-2] American Anthropologist, July, 1893.\n\n[217-1] Cong. Inter. des Americanistes, Actes de la Cuarta Reunion,\nMadrid, 1881, tom. 2, pp. 173-174.\n\n[219-1] Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics, p. 115.\n\n[220-1] American Hero Myths, p. 222.\n\n[220-2] Names of the Gods in Kiche Myths, p. 22.\n\n[223-1] Fourth Ann. Rep. Bur. Eth. (1882-83), p. 238.\n\n[223-2] Schoolcraft, \"Indian Tribes,\" etc, vol. I, pl. 51, No. 10, p. 360.\n\n[224-1] American Anthropologist, July, 1893, pp. 258-259.\n\n[224-2] Dr Brinton (Primer, etc, p. 93) explains it as the symbol of a\ndrum. He remarks that \"in a more highly conventionalized form we find them\nin the Cod. Troano thus [giving plate LXIV, 51], which has been explained\nby Pousse, Thomas, and others as making fire or as grinding paint. It is\nobviously the _dzacatan_, what I have called the 'pottery decoration'\naround the figures, showing that the body of the drum was earthenware.\"\nYet (p. 130 and fig. 75) Dr. Brinton explains this identical group or\nparagraph as a representation of the process of making fire from the\nfriction of two pieces of wood. It seems to mo clear that this glyph\nrepresents something in the picture, and not the personage, as there is a\nspecial glyph for this. A comparison of the groups in the two divisions of\nthis plate (Tro. 19) and plates 5 and 6 b of the Dresden Codex shows that\nthe glyph refers to the work or action indicated by the pictures. That it\nrefers to something in or indicated by the pictures, and that no drum is\nfigured, will, I think, be admitted by most students of these codices.\n\n[225-1] Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 117) errs in regarding the superfix to this\nglyph as the _kin_ or sun symbol.\n\n[227-1] Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 110) says the object represented by this\nsymbol is \"a polished stone, shell pendant, or bead.\" This authority\nconsiders the dot or eye in the upper part as a perforation by which it\nwas strung on a cord. If this be true, it is strange that we see them\nnowhere in the codices strung on strings, though necklaces are frequently\nrepresented; and that we do see them piled up in vessels, see them putting\nforth shoots and leaves, and see birds and quadrupeds devouring thorn. Dr\nBrinton himself (p. 123, E. No. 29) gives one of these sprouting _kan_\nsymbols, which he says \"is a picture of the maize plant from Cod. Tro., p.\n29.\" That it is not used ikonomatically here is evident, as _kan_ in Maya\nis not a name for maize or grain of maize.\n\n[232-1] First Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., p. 386.\n\n[232-2] Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 65) says: \"Former students have been unable\nto explain this design\" and suggests that it is a maggot.\n\n[232-3] Brinton follows Brasseur in supposing it represents the \"grasping\nhand,\" and thinks it is a rebus of _mach_, \"asir, tomar con los manos.\"\n\n[236-1] Page 66.\n\n[237-1] Notwithstanding his definition given above, Dr Brinton suggests in\nhis late work that the symbols of the day bear a close resemblance to some\nof the sun signs.\n\n[238-1] For explanation of the inclosed comb-like characters, Landa's\n_ca_, see Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, page 355.\n\n[239-1] Brinton thinks that in some of the forms it indicates \"a trail\" or\n\"footprints,\" which are meanings of _oc_.\n\n[240-1] I was not aware that _oc_ had the signification \"dog\" in any of\nthe Mayan languages, nor do I find that Seler or Brinton appeal to this\nfact in their efforts to explain the day name in the Maya calendar.\nHowever, Dr Brinton remarks that Brasseur and Seler think that some forms\nof the symbol \"portray the ears of a dog, as in some of the Mayan dialects\nthe dog is called _oc_.\"\n\n[240-2] Dr Brinton (Primer, p. 95) says that this is called \"an article of\nfood, by Thomas.\" While this is correct in the sense that I speak of the\nturkey (_kutz_ or _cuitz_) as food, it is incorrect in giving the\nimpression that I interpret the symbol by \"article of food,\" as I have\nalways interpreted it \"turkey.\"\n\n[245-1] Dr Brinton says it is the face of an old woman with a peculiar\npointed earmark.\n\n[248-1] Brinton says the _ben_ symbol looks to him \"like a wooden bridge,\nthe two supports of which are shown and which was sometimes covered with a\nstraw mat.\" If so, it must be shown in profile, and the hanging marks\nabove (see LXVI, 16, 17, 19) would seem to be without signification;\nmoreover, in LXVI, 18, the supports hang from above, which would, on this\ntheory, imply a hanging bridge.\n\n[250-1] Cong. Inter. Americanistes, 1881, tom. 2.\n\n[250-2] Dr Brinton says the usual form suggests scattered grain husks, the\nword for which is _xiix_.\n\n[257-1] Jour. Am. Eth. and Arch., II, p. 38.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nA LIST OF THE DEITIES OF THE DAYS OF THE MONTH IN THE MAORI CALENDAR\n(AFTER TAYLOR).\n\n\n 1. _Tane_ was the parent of the tui, of birds in general, and trees.\n 2. _Ru_, the father of lakes and rivers.\n 3. _Rupe_, of the pigeon.\n 4. _Tangaroa_, of fish.\n 5. _Irawaru_, of dogs.\n 6. _Nga rangi-hore_, of stones.\n 7. _Mauika_, of fire.\n 8. _Maui_, of the land.\n 9. _Mumuhanga_, of the Totara; also called Tukau moana.\n 10. _Paruri_, of the Tui [bird].\n 11. _Papa_, of the Kiwi [Apterix Australis].\n 12. _Owa_, of the dog; he was also the father of Irawaru.\n 13. _Pahiko_, of the Kaka.\n 14. _Punga Matua_, of the shark (tuatini), lizard, and tamuri [the\n snapper-fish].\n 15. _Tute maona_, of the Kahikatoa [a plant so named].\n 16. _Hina-moki_, of the rat.\n 17. _Tuwairore_, of the Kahikatea [a certain tree] and Rimu [a\n species of pine].\n 18. _Haere-awa-awa_, of the Weka [a large bird].\n 19. _Rongo_, of the Kumara [sweet potato]; also called Rongomatane.\n 20. _Tiki_, of man.\n 21. _Tute-nga-nahu_, of evil.\n 22. _Tahu_, of all good.\n 23. _Tawiri-matea_, of the winds.\n 24. _Mokoikuwaru_, of lizards.\n 25. _Otunai-rangi_, of the palm tree (nikau) and flax (harakeke).\n 26. _Haumia_, of the fern root.\n 27. _Tomairangi_, of dew.\n 28. _Haupapa_, of ice.\n 29. _Hauhunga_, of cold.\n 30. _Te-apu hau_, father of storm and tempests.\n\nIt must be understood that these are not the names of the days, but of\nthe deities which preside over them, and of the things which they\ncreated or of which they had special care.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n\n AAPE, _see_ APE.\n\n ABAGH day symbol discussed 229\n\n ACATL day symbol discussed 245\n --, meaning of 227\n\n AGHUAL day symbol discussed 262\n\n AH day symbol discussed 245\n\n AHAU and _lamat_ symbols compared 235\n -- day symbol discussed 262\n\n AHBULUC-BALAM, a Maya deity 244\n\n AHMAK day symbol discussed 252\n\n AK, phonetic value of 223\n\n AKAB, definition of 261\n\n AKBAL symbol in Maya calendar 221\n\n APE day symbol discussed 259\n --, definition of 262\n\n APPE, _see_ APE.\n\n ATL day symbol discussed 237\n --, meaning of 238\n\n\n BAKAH, definition of 262\n\n BAKLUM-CHAAM, a Maya deity 225\n\n BALAM day symbol discussed 248\n\n BALCHE, a ceremonial drink 253\n\n BALLOO, definition of 252\n\n BAT, how regarded by Central Americans 225\n\n BATZ day symbol discussed 241\n\n BEE, _see_ HONEY.\n\n BEEN, _see_ BEN.\n\n BEN symbol in Maya hieroglyphs 218, 245\n\n BENEL, meaning of 245\n\n BIRD as a wind symbol 219\n -- symbols in the codices 219, 220, 225, 226, 251\n\n BLACK DEITIES of Maya codices 208\n\n BORGIAN CODEX, discussion of symbols in 212, 213, 219, 222, 244\n --, earth symbol in 256\n --, flint symbols in 228\n --, sky symbol in 223\n\n BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG, _oc_ symbol interpreted by 239\n --, on definition of _ah_ 245\n --, on definition of _ahau_ 263\n --, on definition of _chacyuc_ 233\n --, on definition of _hok_ 241\n --, on definition of _lamat_ 236\n --, on definition of _toh_ 238\n --, on definition of _tzac_ 241\n --, on derivation of _chuen_ 243\n --, on Mexican mythology 221\n --, on origin of _chicchan_ symbol 231\n --, on the _akab-maax_ symbol 208\n --, on the _bacab_ symbol 209\n --, on the germ symbol 218\n --, on the _manic_ day symbol 232\n --, on the _lamat_ symbol 249\n\n BRECHII, meaning of 228\n\n BRINTON, D. G., _ben_ symbol interpreted by 248\n --, on drum symbol in Maya codex 209, 224\n --, on meaning of certain symbols 213, 227, 239, 250\n --, interpretation of light symbol by 237\n --, interpretation of _oc_ symbol by 239, 240\n --, Maya and Zapotec names harmonized by 237\n --, on definition of _ahau_ 263\n --, on definition of _ahmak_ 252\n --, on definition of _ape_ 262\n --, on definition of _aunahpu_ 263\n --, on definition of _chab_ 253\n --, on definition of _chinax_ 258-259\n --, on definition of _eb_ 244\n --, on definition of _edznab_ 259\n --, on definition of _guache_ 227\n --, on definition of _hix_ 249\n --, on definition of _laa_ 245\n --, on definition of _lamat_ 236\n --, on definition of _tecpatl_ 258\n --, on definition of _tox_ 231\n --, on definition of _uotan_ 221, 222\n --, on derivation of _caban_ 255\n --, on derivation of _chicchan_ 230\n --, on derivation of _chuen_ 243\n --, on derivation of _gopa_ 259\n --, on derivation of _kanel_ 236\n --, on derivation of _manik_ 234\n --, on derivation of _muluc_ 238\n --, on maggot sign in the codices 222\n --, on the black deities 208\n --, on the _eche_ day symbol 248\n --, on the four-winds symbol 219\n --, on the _ghanan_ symbol 226\n --, on the Maya calendar 205\n --, on the month name _zip_ 255\n --, on origin of _guilloo_ symbol 252\n --, on origin of _naa_ symbol 251\n --, on the rabbit in indian mythology 236\n --, on the term _ni_ 219\n --, Zapotec terms interpreted by 218\n\n BRUSH symbol the codices 244\n\n BULUC-AHAU, a Maya deity 244\n\n BURDEN-BEARER in Troano codex 250\n\n\n CA symbol of Landa 242\n\n CAB, definition of 255\n -- symbol, application of 205\n\n CABAN symbol discussed 205, 253, 254\n\n CABNIX, definition of 257\n\n CABRERA, --, on title of a Tzental manuscript 222\n\n CACAO symbol in the codices 234.[TN-4] 238\n\n CAGH-BEN, meaning of 245\n\n CAHOGH day symbol discussed 259\n\n CALENDAR, Maori, day deities in 265\n\n CALLI day symbol discussed 221\n --, signification of 221\n\n CAMA-ZO'TZ in Central American mythology 225\n\n CAMEY day symbol discussed 231\n\n CAN day symbol discussed 229\n\n CANEL day symbol discussed 235\n\n CAOK day symbol discussed 259\n\n CAPAK, definition of 262\n\n CARDINAL points, birds symbolic of the 220\n --, observed in ceremonies 257\n --, symbols of, in the codices 234, 242, 257, 263\n -- winds symbolic of 232\n\n CAUAC day symbol discussed 259\n\n CAVERN symbol in Mexican pictography 223\n\n CECELHUCHAH, meaning of 224\n\n CEH symbol in Dresden codex 249\n -- symbol discussed 261\n\n CH', phonetic value of 218, 226\n\n CH'AB, meaning of 253\n\n CHABIN day symbol discussed 252\n\n CHAC, a Maya rain god 208, 238\n -- defined 226, 251\n -- symbol in Dresden codex 225-226\n\n CHACBOLAY, meaning of 226\n\n CHACKINIL, definition of 261\n\n CHAMPOLLION, --, Egyptian negation signed by 212\n\n CHAN, meaning of 230, 232\n\n CHARNAY, DESIR\u00c9, day symbol copied by 207\n --, battlemented structures figured by 246\n\n CHE, definition of 260\n\n CHEIL, definition of 260\n\n CHI, definition of 243\n\n CHIC day symbol discussed 254\n\n CHICCHAN day symbol discussed 229, 238, 241\n\n CHICH, phonetic value of 233\n\n CHICHAN, meaning of 232\n\n CHIGH, meaning of 233, 261\n\n CHIKIN, meaning of 233\n -- symbol in Maya codex 225\n\n CHILLA day symbol discussed 207\n --, meaning of 213\n\n CHIMALPOPOCA CODEX, interpretation of mythic concept in 221\n\n CHINA day symbol discussed 232\n\n CHINAX day symbol discussed 258\n\n CHIRIBIAS, a Zapotec goddess 255\n\n CHIYLLA, _see_ CHILLA.\n\n CHOAH symbol in Troano codex 234\n\n CHOCH, meaning of 237\n\n CHOCO, meaning of 242\n\n CHOICH, meaning of 234\n\n CHOLCEH, equivalent to _xolke_ 233\n\n CHOOCH, meaning of 237\n\n CHUAC symbol in Maya hieroglyphs 226\n\n CHUC, meaning of 232\n\n CHUCH, significance of 225\n\n CHUEN and _akbal_ symbols compared 221, 225\n -- day symbol discussed 212, 241\n\n CHUENCHE, definition of 243\n\n CHUP, meaning of 253\n\n CHUUC, meaning of 232\n\n CI day symbol discussed 229\n --, definition of 262\n\n CIB day symbol discussed 224, 252\n\n CIMI symbol discussed 231\n -- symbol in Dresden codex 250\n -- symbol in Troano codes 229\n\n CIPACTLI symbol discussed 207, 212\n -- symbol in Borgian codex 213\n\n CLAVIGERO, F. S., on signification of Mexican term 244\n\n CLOUD SYMBOLS compared 223\n -- in the codices 222, 258\n\n COHUATL day symbol discussed 229\n\n COLOR SYMBOLISM in the codices 223, 228\n\n COMB-LIKE CHARACTERS in Maya codex 238\n -- in Dresden codex 242\n\n COOK, _see_ CAOK.\n\n CORDOVA, --, on meaning of _magache_ 228\n -- on meaning of _quii-lana_ 231-232\n\n CORN destruction in Troano codex 217\n --, significance of 228\n -- symbols in the codices 216, 226, 242\n\n CORN GOD in Maya hieroglyphs 210, 217, 229\n\n CORTESIAN CODEX, _caban_ symbol in 254\n --, _cauac_ day symbol in 259\n --, _chuen_ symbol in 241\n --, _cimi_ symbol in 231\n --, discussion of symbols in 256, 261\n --, _eb_ symbol in 243\n --, _ix_ symbol in 248\n --, _kan_ symbol in 229\n --, _muluc_ symbol in 237\n --, _oc_ symbol in 239\n --, phonetic elements of symbols in 239\n\n COSMOGONGY of the Muyscas 220\n\n COZCAQUAUHTLI day symbol discussed 252\n\n CROSS symbol in the codices 232, 259\n\n CUCH, meaning of 247\n\n CUCHPACH, meaning of 250, 261\n\n CUETZPALLIN day symbol discussed 226\n --, meaning of 227\n\n CUITZ, _see_ KUTZ.\n\n CUMHU symbol in the codices 228\n\n CUSHING, F. H., on cardinal points in Zu\u00f1i ceremonies 257\n\n CUTZ, _see_ KUTZ.\n\n\n DAY deities in Maori calendar 265\n -- names in Maya and Mexican calendars 206\n -- SYMBOL in Troano codex 222\n -- of the Maya year 199-265\n\n DEATH GOD of the Mexicans 243\n -- symbol as a day symbol 231\n\n DEER symbol in the codices 233, 234\n\n DEITIES, day, in Maori calendar 265\n\n DOG-EAR SYMBOL in the codices 239\n\n DOG-EYE SYMBOL in Mexican codices 242\n\n DOG IMAGES, sacrifice of 211\n\n DOG-LIKE ANIMALS in the codices 226, 229\n\n DOG SYMBOL in Dresden codex 240\n -- in Maya codex 229\n\n DOTS connected with Maya glyphs 223, 224, 235, 238, 241, 243, 254\n\n DRESDEN codex, _ahau_ symbol in 263\n --, _akbal_ symbol in 221\n --, _ben_ symbol in 245\n --, bird symbols in 225, 251\n --, burden-bearers symbolized in 247\n --, _caban_ day symbol in 254\n --, _cauac_ day symbol in 259\n --, _ceh_ symbol in 249\n --, _chac_ symbol in 225-226\n --, _chuen_ symbol in 241\n --, _cib_ symbol in 252\n --, _cimi_ symbol in 231\n --, discussion of symbols in 213[TN-5] 233, 240, 255, 260, 261\n --, _eb_ symbol in 243\n --, _ik_ symbol in 216\n --, _ix_ symbol in 248\n --, _kan_ symbol in 229\n --, long-nose deity in 258\n --, _men_ symbol in 250\n --, _mol_ symbol in 224, 238\n --, _muluc_ symbol in 237, 238\n --, _oc_ symbol in 239\n --, _Quetzal_ symbol in 224\n --, serpent symbol in 256\n --, _xul_ symbol in 225\n\n DRUM SYMBOL in Maya codex 224\n\n DZACATAN, significance of 224\n\n\n E day symbol discussed 243\n\n EAGLE SYMBOL in the codices 251\n\n EAR, _see_ DOG-EAR.\n\n EARTH symbol in Borgian codes 256\n\n EARTH DEITY in Troano codex 216, 217\n\n EARTHMOTHER symbol in Maya hieroglyphs 251\n\n EARTHQUAKE symbol in the codices 255\n\n EB day symbol discussed 243\n\n ECHE day symbol discussed 248\n\n EDZNAB day symbol discussed 258\n\n EE day symbol discussed 243\n\n EHECATL day symbol discussed 215, 219, 220\n\n ELAB day symbol discussed 239\n\n EUOB day symbol discussed 243\n\n EXORCISM represented in Maya glyphs 248\n\n EYE, dog, symbol in Maya codices 242\n -- in Maya glyphs 237\n\n EZANAB, _see_ EDZNAB.\n\n\n FEJERVARY CODEX, bird symbol in 220\n --, reference to symbols in 250\n\n FEWKES, J. W., on cardinal directions in ceremonies 257\n\n FIELD DEITIES in Dresden codex 226\n\n FIRE SYMBOL in the codices 218, 219, 224, 257\n\n FISH SYMBOL in the codices 241, 261\n\n FLINT SYMBOLS in Borgian codex 228\n\n FORNANDER, --, cited on Hawaiian monsters 214\n\n F\u00d6RSTEMANN, E., on significance of certain glyphs 250\n\n FUEN-LEAL CODEX, monsters pictured in 214\n\n FULLER, E. A., on meaning of _gu-lana_ 231\n --, on meaning of _lu_ 264\n --, on meaning of _na-gutchi_ 228\n --, on Zapotec name for wine 219\n\n\n GATU, _see_ K'AT.\n\n GHANAN day symbol discussed 226\n\n GOPA, definition of 259\n\n GOPAA day symbol discussed 248, 258\n\n GRASS symbol in the codices 244\n\n GTOX, meaning of 232\n\n GUACHE day symbol discussed 226\n\n GUECHE, _see_ GUACHE.\n\n GU\u00c8LA day symbol discussed 221\n\n GUEZA-GUIPA, definition of 259\n\n GUI day symbol discussed 215\n\n GUII day symbol discussed 229\n\n GUILLOO day symbol discussed 252\n\n GUIPA, definition of 259\n\n GUZMAN, --, on meaning of _k'an_ 226\n\n\n HAND symbol in the codices 232\n\n HANUMAN, a Hindu monkey god 221\n\n HAWAIIAN and Central American linguistic similarities 236\n -- and Zapotec terms compared 262\n -- mythology, monsters in 214\n\n HAX, meaning of 233\n\n HCHOM symbol in Dresden codes 225\n\n HCHUY, meaning of 225\n\n HEART figures in Mexican codices 218\n\n HECHCAB, _see_ XACHCAB.\n\n HENDERSON, A., an authority for _pekokalil_ 248\n --, on Maya names of Venus 249\n --, on meaning of _cabnix_ 257\n --, on meaning of _cancan_ 256\n --, on meaning of _ceh_ and _kez_ 249, 261\n --, on meaning of _chac_ 226\n --, on meaning of _chacboay_ 226\n --, on meaning of _chichan_ 230\n --, on meaning of _cib_ 253, 254\n --, on meaning of _chooch_ 237\n --, on meaning of _chuuc_ 232\n --, on meaning of _kan_ 228\n --, on meaning of _kankin_ 261\n --, on meaning of _lemba_ 236\n --, on meaning of _manik_ 234\n --, on meaning of _moxan_ 234\n --, on meaning of _mul_ 239\n --, on meaning of _pacoc_ 247\n --, on meaning of _pal_ 253\n --, on meaning of various Maya terms 247\n --, on meaning of _xachcab_ 258\n --, on meaning of _xolke_ 233\n --, on meaning of _yokcabil_ 257\n --, on meaning of _yulpol_ 211\n --, on phonetic value of _ak_ 223\n --, on the _akabmax_ symbol 208\n --, on the _chucay_ symbol 210\n --, on the term _chuch_ 225\n\n HICH, phonetic value of 233\n\n HINDU MYTHOLOGY, monsters in 214\n --, wind god in 221\n\n HIX, _see_ BALAM; IX.\n\n HOCH, phonetic value of 233\n\n HOK definition of 241\n\n HOKOL symbol discussed 218\n\n HONEY symbol in Troano codex 256\n\n HOOCH, meaning of 235\n\n HUCK, meaning of 224\n\n HUMKU symbol in the codices 228\n\n HUNAHPU day symbol discussed 262\n\n HUNAPU, in Central American mythology 225\n\n HURAKAN in the Popol Vuh 220, 221\n\n\n IGH day symbol discussed 215\n\n II, _see_ QUII.\n\n IK symbol in Maya calendar 215\n\n IMIZ[TN-6] symbol discussed 207\n\n IMOX symbol discussed 207\n\n ITLAN, possible derivation of 245\n --, _see_ MALLI-NALLI.\n\n ITZAMNA, a Maya deity 242, 251\n --, elements of the term 225\n\n ITZCUINTLI day symbol discussed 239\n\n IX day symbol discussed 248\n\n IXCHEBLYAX, a Zapotec goddess 255\n\n IXCHEL, a Maya deity 251\n\n\n JAVANESE, mythic birds of the 220\n --, mythic monsters of the 214\n\n\n KAK symbol in Maya hieroglyphs 218\n\n KAN symbol discussed 215, 226, 242\n\n KANAN, _see_ KAN.\n\n KANCAB, definition of 256\n\n KANEL, meaning of 235\n --, _see_ CANEL.\n\n KANKIN, definition of 261\n -- symbol in Maya codices 241\n\n KAPAK, definition of 262\n\n K'AT day symbol discussed 226\n\n K'ATIC, _see_ K'at.\n\n KAYAB symbol, use of 206\n\n KI, definition of 202\n\n KIN symbol in the codices 233, 235, 263\n\n KINGSBOROUGH, _Lord_, skull glyph pictured by 250\n\n KINICHKAKMO represented in the codices 218, 219, 248\n\n KNIFE sign among Indians 232\n\n KUCH, meaning of 225\n\n KUKULCAN, elements of the term 225\n\n KUTZ, definition of 261\n -- symbol in Troano codex 240, 263\n\n\n LAA, _see_ GUI; QUII.\n\n LAALA, _see_ GUI.\n\n LAARI-API-NIZA, definition of 262\n\n LABA, _see_ LAPA.\n\n LAMAT, and _ceh_ symbols compared 249\n -- day symbol discussed 235\n\n LAMBAT day symbol discussed 235\n\n LANA day symbol discussed 231\n\n LANDA, --, _ahau_ symbol given by 262\n --, _ben_ symbol given by 245\n --, _ca_ symbol given by 234, 238, 242\n --, _caban_ day symbol given by 254\n --, _cauac_ day symbol given by 259\n --, _chicchan_ symbol given by 229\n --, _cib_ symbol given by 252\n --, _cimi_ symbol given by 231\n --, cited on Buluc-Ahau 244\n --, cited on Maya sacrifices 211\n --, _cuen_ symbol given by 241\n --, _e_ symbol of 224\n --, _eb_ symbol given by 243\n --, form of _akbal_ symbol given by 221\n --, _i_ symbol given by 218\n --, _ik_ symbol given by 215\n --, interpretation of symbols by 263\n --, _ix_ symbol given by 248\n --, _kan_ symbol given by 226\n --, _ku_ symbol given by 224\n --, _lamat_ symbol given by 235\n --, _le_ symbol interpreted by 240\n --, _ma_ symbol given, by 211\n --, _men_ symbol given by 250\n --, _muluc_ symbol given by 237\n --, _o_ symbol given by 218, 224\n --, _oc_ day symbol given by 239\n\n LAO day symbol discussed 262\n\n LAPA day symbol discussed 235\n\n LE, meaning of 240\n\n LEC, meaning of 264\n\n LEM, meaning of 235\n\n LEMLAGHET, meaning of 236\n\n LIAA, _see_ GUI.\n\n LIGHT symbol in the codices 237\n -- symbolized by the rabbit 236\n\n LIGHTNING SYMBOL in the codices 216, 226, 237, 240, 262\n\n LIKIN symbol in Maya codices 263\n --, meaning of 235\n\n LIZARD symbolism of the Maori 226\n\n LONG-NOSE GOD in Maya codices 210, 217, 251, 258\n\n LOO day symbol discussed 241\n -- signification of 253, 254\n --, _see_ GUILLOO; LAO.\n\n\n MA, meaning of 234\n\n MAC, symbol for 212\n\n MACAW symbol in Maya codex 238\n\n MAGGOT symbol in the codices 232\n\n MAK-CAB, definition of 257\n\n MALAALAHAH, definition of 262\n\n MALAY and Zapotec term compared 262\n -- mythology, monsters in 214\n\n MALINALTEPEC symbol in Mexican pictography 244\n\n MALLERY, GARRICK, on indian sign for knife 232\n --, on meaning of certain hand symbols 232\n --, on Mexican cloud symbols 223\n --, on the sign of negation 212\n\n MALLI-NALLI day symbol discussed 243\n\n MANI-BIICI, meaning of 251\n\n MANIK day symbol discussed 232, 261\n --, phonetic element of 237\n\n MAORI, corn introduced among the 228\n -- day deities of the 265\n -- lizard symbolism of the 226\n -- mythic monsters of the 214\n\n MASKED symbols in the codices 260\n\n MAT symbol in the codices 246\n\n MAYA, day names of the 206\n -- year, day symbols of the, memoir on 199-265\n\n MAZATL day symbol discussed 232\n\n MEN day symbol discussed 250\n\n MENDOZA codex, corn symbol in 227\n --, mat symbol in the 246\n\n MEZTITLAN, day symbol of the 252\n\n MIQUIZTLI day symbol discussed 231\n\n MOL symbol in Dresden codex 224, 238\n\n MOLO day symbol discussed 237\n\n MONKEY in Quiche mythology 243\n -- in Mexican mythology 221\n -- GOD of the Hindu 221\n\n MONSTERS in Oceanic mythology 214\n\n MOON symbol in Borgian codex 222\n\n MOX, _see_ IMOX.\n\n MOXIC day symbol discussed 232\n\n MOXIN, _see_ IMOX.\n\n MUHUL, definition of 238\n\n MUL, definition of 239\n\n MULU, _see_ MOLO.\n\n MULUC symbol discussed 237\n -- symbol in Dresden codex 258\n\n MUYAL, definition of 258\n\n MUYSCAS, cosmogony of the 220\n\n\n NAA day symbol discussed 250\n\n NACHAN, meaning of 222\n\n NAGACHE, meaning of 228\n\n NA-GUTCHI, meaning of 228\n\n NAHUATL, day names of the 206\n\n NAHUI OLLI day symbol discussed 254\n\n NEW YEAR, Mexican festival of the 244\n\n NEW ZEALAND and Central American linguistic similarities 236\n -- and Zapotec term compared 262\n --, _see_ MAORI.\n\n NI, signification of, in Maya 219\n --, _see_ GUI.\n\n NICHOLS, KERRY, cited on Maori monsters 214\n\n NINE LORDS OF THE NIGHT in Borgian codex 223\n\n NIZA day symbol discussed 237\n\n NOII day symbol discussed 254\n\n NU\u00d1EZ DE LA VEGA, _Bishop_, on Central American deity 221\n --, on the _chinax_ symbol 258\n\n\n OC day symbol discussed 238, 239\n\n OCELOTL day symbol discussed 248\n\n OCH, meaning of 241\n\n OCQUIL, meaning of 241\n\n OJIBWA cloud symbol 223\n\n OKCABIL, _see_ YOKCABIL.\n\n OLLIN day symbol discussed 254\n --, meaning of 255\n\n OLOH symbol discussed 218\n\n OQUIL, meaning of 241\n\n OTOCH, meaning of 247\n\n OZOMATLI day symbol discussed 241\n\n\n PACEZ, definition of 247\n\n PACHAH, definition of 247\n\n PACOC, meaning of 247\n\n PAK, meaning of 247, 262\n\n PAL, signification of 253\n\n PALENQUE tablet, _ahau_ symbol on 263\n --, _chuen_ symbol on 241\n --, day symbol on 207\n --, _ik_ symbol on 215\n --, _kan_ symbol on 226\n --, _lamat_ symbol on 235\n\n PANTHER-LIKE animals in Dresden codex 226\n\n PARROT symbol in Dresden codex 238\n\n PAX symbol referred to 229\n\n PECH, definition of 247\n\n PECUAH symbol in Maya codex 229\n\n PEK symbol in Maya codex 229\n\n PEKOKALIL, application of term 248\n\n PELA-PILLAANA, meaning of 231\n\n PE\u00d1AFIEL, A., on Mexican cavern symbol 223\n --, on symbolism of _zacatla_ 244\n\n PERESIANUS CODEX, _cauac_ day symbol in 259\n --, _chuen_ symbol in 241\n --, _eb_ symbol in 243\n --, _ix_ symbol in 248\n --, _kan_ symbol in 226\n --, _oc_ symbol in 239\n\n PEREZ, PIO, on meaning of _chacbolay_ 226\n --, on meaning of _chicchan_ 230\n --, on meaning of _choah_ 234\n --, on meaning of _choch_ 237\n --, on meaning of _chuc_ 232\n --, on meaning of _edznab_ 259\n --, on meaning of _hchom_ 225\n --, on meaning of _hok_ 241\n --, on meaning of _ikel_ 220\n --, on meaning of _kankanil_ 228\n --, on meaning of _lemba_ 236\n --, on meaning of _len_ 235\n --, on meaning of _mech_, _ixmech_ 213\n --, on meaning of _pokchetah_ 247\n --, on meaning of _tok_ 232\n --, on meaning of _tzac_ 241\n\n PHONETIC value of Maya hieroglyphs 205[TN-7] 218, 223, 224, 235, 237,\n 238, 239, 241, 242, 247, 249, 253, 254, 255, 257, 259, 261, 263\n\n PHONETICISM, application of term 254\n\n PIJA day symbol discussed 243\n\n PIMENTEL, F., Tzental paternoster given by 263\n\n PIPIL, day symbol of the 252\n\n PISA, BARTOLOME DE, on meaning of certain symbol 240\n\n POKCHETAH, definition of 247\n\n POPOL VUH, bat house mentioned in 225\n --, mythic bird mentioned in 220\n --, reference to monkey in 243\n\n POUSSE, --, certain symbols interpreted by 224\n\n PRIAPUS of the Maya 225\n\n PUCHAH, definition of 247\n\n PURIFICATION symbol in Troano codex 234\n\n\n QI, definition of 262\n\n Q-TOX, meaning of 231\n\n QUAUCHTLI day symbol discussed 250\n\n QUEH day symbol discussed 232\n\n QUETZAL symbol in Dresden codex 224\n\n QUEZA, _see_ NIZA.\n\n QUIAHUITL day symbol discussed 259\n\n QUICHE-CAKCHIQUEL, day names of the 206\n\n QUICHE myth, reference to monkey in 243\n\n QUII day symbol discussed 245\n\n QUII-LANA, meaning of 232\n\n\n RABBIT in Indian mythology 236\n -- symbol in the codices 235\n\n RAIN DEITY in Dresden codex 226\n -- in Troano codex 217\n -- of the Quiche 238\n -- of the Mexicans 216\n\n RAIN SYMBOL in Dresden codex 258\n -- in Troano codex 222\n\n RAMIREZ, --, on Mexican wind and rain gods 216\n\n RI-API-LAHA, definition of 262\n\n ROGOPA, definition of 259\n\n ROSNY, L. DE, on the _lamat_ symbol 249\n\n\n SACRIFICE of dog images 211\n\n SAMOAN and Central American similarities 236\n -- and Zapotec term compared 262\n\n SCHELLHAS, P., on corn symbol in Maya hieroglyphs 227\n --, on death god symbol in codices 243\n --, on origin of certain Maya symbol 215\n --, on the black deities 208\n --, on the _imix_ symbol 207, 208\n --, on wind symbol in the codices 232\n\n SELER, EDWARD, _ahau_ symbol figured by 262\n --, discussion of symbols by 260\n --, interpretation of certain symbols by 216, 218, 223, 233, 257\n --, Dresden codex glyphs interpreted by 258, 260\n --, interpretation of _kan_ symbol by 228\n --, interpretation of _muluc_ symbol by 239\n --, interpretation of _oc_ symbol by 239, 240, 241\n --, interpretation of Troano figures by 217\n --, Maya and Zapotec names harmonized by 237\n --, misinterpretation of symbols by 262\n --, on certain bird-like figures 219\n --, on certain deity symbols 210\n --, on corn symbol on Maya codices 227\n --, on derivation of _chicchan_ 230\n --, on derivation of _gopa_ 259\n --, on derivation of _imox_ 212\n --, on derivation of _manik_ 234\n --, on derivation of _muluc_ 238\n --, on derivation of _xoo_ 255\n --, on dot circle in Maya hieroglyphs 223\n --, on meaning of _ahau_ 263\n --, on meaning of _ahmak_ 252\n --, on meaning of _aunahpu_ 263\n --, on meaning of certain calendar names 244, 245, 248\n --, on meaning of _chilla_ 213\n --, on meaning of _chuen_ 243\n --, on meaning of _cib_ 253\n --, on meaning of _ollin_ 255\n --, on meaning of _tecpatl_ 258\n --, on meaning of _tihax_ 259\n --, on meaning of _tox_ symbol 231\n --, on meaning of _uotan_, _votan_ 221, 222\n --, on origin of _ben_ symbol 245\n --, on origin of certain Maya symbol 215\n --, on sun symbols in Borgian codes 222\n --, on the black deities 208\n --, on the cavern symbol 223\n --, on the _cayom_ symbol 210\n --, on the _chac_ symbol 208, 225-226\n --, on the _chuen_ symbol 242\n --, on the eagle glyph 251\n --, on the _eche_ day symbol 248\n --, on the _guilloo_ symbol 252\n --, on the _imix_ symbol 207, 208, 209\n --, on the _ix_ glyph 250\n --, on the _kan-imix_ symbol 211\n --, on the _lamat_ symbol 235\n --, on Maya calendar 205\n --, on the _men_ symbol 251\n --, on serpent symbol in Dresden codex 256\n --, on wind symbol in the codices 232\n\n SELER, EDWARD, on Ximenes' interpretation of certain terms 227\n --, phonetcism[TN-8] of hieroglyphs not accepted by 218, 225\n\n SERPENT figures in the codices 230, 256\n -- in Mexican pictography 223\n -- in Tzental pictography 222\n --, _see_ SNAKES.\n\n SEWING symbol in Dresden codex 237\n\n SKULL symbol in the codices 223, 232, 250\n\n SNAKES, _see_ SERPENT.\n -- symbol in Troano codex 247\n\n STAR SYMBOL in Maya codices 222, 249\n\n STEVENS, J. L., battlemented structures figured by 246\n\n STOLL, OTTO, on definition of _ahau_ 263\n --, on signification of _vuich_ 228\n\n STORM GOD in Hindu mythology 221\n\n SUN symbol in the codices 222, 233, 235\n\n SYMBOLISM, _see_ DAY SYMBOLS.\n\n\n TAHAITAN and Central American linguistic similarities 236\n\n TANIWHA, a mythic monster 214\n\n TAX symbol, phonetic value of 259\n\n TAYLOR, RICHARD, cited on Maori lizard god 214\n --, on Maori lizard symbolism 226\n\n TECOLOTL day symbol discussed 252\n --, definition of 252\n\n TECPATL day symbol discussed 258\n --, meaning of 228\n\n TECPILA NAHUATL day symbol discussed 254\n\n TEE-LAO, definition of 240\n\n TELLA day symbol discussed 239\n\n TEMETLATL, _see_ TEOTL-ITONAL.\n\n TEOTL-ITONAL day symbol discussed 252\n\n TEPEYOLLOTL, signification of 221\n\n THOMAS, CYRUS, on day symbols of the Maya year 199-265\n\n THUNDER god of the Quiche 238\n -- symbol in Mexican hieroglyphs 216\n\n TICH, meaning of 233\n\n TIGER-LIKE ANIMAL in Mexican hieroglyphs 244\n\n TIGER SYMBOL in the codices 248\n\n TIHAX day symbol discussed 258\n --, definition of 259\n\n TIKAL INSCRIPTION, _ahau_ glyph in 263\n --, _ik_ symbol in 215\n --, _lamat_ symbol in 235\n\n TLALOC, a Mexican god 238\n -- symbol in Borgian codex 213\n -- symbol in Troano codex 216, 217\n\n TOCHTLI day symbol discussed 235\n\n TOH day symbol discussed 237\n --, meaning of 238\n\n TOHIL, a Quiche deity 238\n\n TOK, meaning of 232\n\n TONGA and Central American linguistic similarities 236\n -- and Zapotec term compared 262\n\n TOO-QUIXE-PILLAANA, meaning of 231\n\n TORTURE represented in Troano codex 229\n\n TOX day symbol discussed 231\n\n TOX-OGHBIL, meaning of 231\n\n TREGEAR, EDWARD, cited on mythic water monsters 214\n\n TROANO CODEX, bird symbols in the 251\n --, burden bearers symbolized in 247\n --, _caban_ symbol in 254\n --, _cauac_ day symbol in 259\n --, _chicchan_ symbol in 229\n --, _chuen_ symbol in 241\n --, _cimi_ symbol in 231\n --, corn god in 229\n --, corn symbol in 227\n --, discussion of glyphs in 216, 224, 225, 234, 256, 260, 261, 262\n --, _eb_ symbol in 243\n --, _edznab_ day symbol in 258\n --, _ix_ symbol in 248\n --, _oc_ symbol in 239\n --, mat symbol in 246\n --, _pak_ symbol in 247\n --, snake symbol in 247\n --, symbolic figures in 219\n\n TURKEY SYMBOL in the codices 240, 261\n\n TZ', phonetic value of 218, 225\n\n TZAC, definition of 241\n\n TZEC, symbol in Dresden codex 242\n\n TZENTAL, day names of the 206\n\n TZI day symbol discussed 239\n\n TZICLIM, definition of 242\n\n TZIQUIN day symbol discussed 250\n\n TZOZ symbol in Maya hieroglyphs 225\n\n\n UAH, signification of 229\n\n UNDERWORLD god in Troano codex 243\n -- in Troano codex 216\n\n UOTAN, _see_ VOTAN.\n\n\n VIENENSIS CODEX, eagle symbol in 251\n\n VOTAN day symbol discussed 221\n --, significance of 221\n\n VUICH, signification of 228\n\n\n WHEEL GLYPH in Troano codex 261\n\n WIND, effect of, on maize crop 217\n -- god in Hindu mythology 221\n -- gods of the Mexicans 216\n -- in Mexican mythology 221\n -- symbol in the codices 232\n -- symbol in Mexican hieroglyphs 216, 217, 219, 222, 249, 252\n -- symbol, the bird as a 219\n\n WOOD symbol in the codices 262\n\n\n XACHCAB, definition of 258\n\n XAN, meaning of 234\n\n XIMENES, --, on definition of _ah_ 245\n -- on meaning of certain Maya terms 227\n -- on meaning of _imox_ 212\n -- on meaning of _kanel_ 235\n -- on meaning of _tihax_ 259\n -- on meaning of _yiz_ 249\n\n XIPE, a Mexican death god 243\n\n XOCHITL day symbol discussed 262\n\n XOLKE, meaning of 233\n\n XOO day symbol discussed 254\n\n XULAH, meaning of 225\n\n XULBIL, meaning of 225\n\n XULEZAH, meaning of 225\n\n XULUB, meaning of 225\n\n XUULUL, meaning of 225\n\n\n YACHE, meaning of 228\n\n YAX and _ceh_ symbols compared 249\n -- symbol of the Maya 211\n\n YAXKIN, form of, discussed 241\n -- symbol of the Maya 211\n\n YEAR, Maya, day symbols of the 199-265\n\n YELLOW, how represented in codices 228\n\n YIB, signification of 254\n\n YIZ, _see_ BALAM.\n\n YMIX, _see_ IMIX.\n\n YOKCABIL, definition of 257\n -- MUYAL, definition of 258\n\n\n ZAC and _ceh_ symbols compared 249\n --, phonetic value of 259\n -- symbol dismissed 250\n\n ZACATLA symbol in Mexican pictography 244\n\n ZACZUY, a Zapotec goddess 255\n\n ZAPOTEC and Oceanic terms compared 262\n --, day names of the 206\n -- terms, interpretation of 218\n\n ZEEK-CIMIL, meaning of 250\n\n ZIIE day symbol discussed 229\n\n ZIP, explanation of the name 255\n -- month symbol in the codices 249\n\n ZNI-NAX, definition of 259\n\n ZOO symbol in Maya hieroglyphs 225\n\n ZOTZ symbol in Maya hieroglyphs 225\n\n ZO'TZI-HA mentioned in Popol Vuh 225\n\n ZUITON, definition of 259\n\n ZUL symbol in Dresden codex 225\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\nThe table of \"Names of the days in different calendars\" was originally\nprinted on two pages, with the page break following the line beginning\n\"Men.\" The repeated column headings have been omitted in this version\nof the text.\n\nThe following errors and inconsistencies have been maintained.\n\nMisspelled words and typographical errors:\n\n Page Error\n TN-1 207 Charney should read Charnay\n TN-2 231 Quiche Cakchiquel should read Quiche-Cakchiquel\n TN-3 Plate LXIX The final . is missing\n TN-4 Index Cacao entry A . was used instead of a ,\n TN-5 Index Dresden entry Discussion of symbols, comma missing after 213\n TN-6 Index Imiz entry Imiz should read Imix\n TN-7 Index Phonetic entry Comma missing after 205\n TN-8 Index Seler entry phonetcism should read phoneticism\n\nThe following word was inconsistently spelled:\n\n Zotzil / Zoztzil\n\nThe following words had inconsistent hyphenation:\n\n cross-hatched / crosshatched\n cuch-pach / cuchpach\n Kinich-kakmo / Kinichkakmo\n\nOther inconsistencies:\n\nThe abbreviation Dr is not usually followed by a . However, in the\nfootnotes on pp. 208 and 224, it ends with a .","title":"Day Symbols of the Maya Year: Sixteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1894-1895, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1897, pages 199-266.","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":37857}